REPORT TO CONGRESS ON HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL ------- REPORT TO CONGRESS ON HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY June 30, 1973 ------- 2d printing with revised references ------- PREFACE Section 212 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (P.1. 89—272) as amended requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertake a comprehensive investigation of the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. This document represents EPA’s Report to the President and the Congress sumarizing the Agency’s investigations and reconinendatlons in response to the Congressional mandate. The findings of this report are based on a number of contractual efforts and analyses by Agency staff carried out since the passage of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. The report is organized into a sunii ary, five major sections, and appendices. The first section discusses the Congressional mandate and the Agency’s response to it. Next, the public health, technologi- cal, and economic aspects of the hazardous waste disposal problem are reviewed. A section detailing the case for hazardous waste regulation follows. The report concludes with a discussion of implementation issues, and findings and reconinendations. lii ------- CONTENTS Page SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS v Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Section 2 IDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF 4 THE PROBLEM Section 3 THE CASE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATION 23 Section 4 ISSUES OF IMPLEMENTATION 37 Section 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 62 REFERENCES 65 APPENDICES A. The Impact of Improper Hazardous 69 Waste Management on the Environment B. Hazardous Waste Stream Data 78 C. Decision Model for Screening, 88 Selecting, and Ranking Hazardous Wastes 0. Sumary of Hazardous Waste 93 Treatment and Disposal Processes E. Decision Map for On-Site Versus 108 Off-Si te Treatment/Disposal F. Suninary of the Hazardous Wastes 119 National Disposal Sites Concept G. The Proposed Hazardous Waste 143 Management Act of 1973 lv ------- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The management of the Nation’s hazardous residues--toxic chemical, biological, radioactive, flammable, and explosive wastes—— is generally inadequate; numerous case studies demonstrate that public health and welfare are unnecessarily threatened by the uncontrolled discharge of such waste materials into the environment. o Based on surveys conducted during this program, it is estimated that the generation of non-radioactive hazardous wastes is taking place at the rate of approximately 10 million tons yearly.’ About 40 percent by weight of these wastes are inorganic materials, 60 percent are organics; about 90 percent of the waste occurs in liquid or semi-liquid form. o Hazardous waste generation is growing at a rate of 5 to 10 percent annually as a result of a number of factors: increasing pro- duction and consumption rates, bans and cancellations of toxic sub- stances, and energy requirements (which lead to radioactive waste generation at higher rates). o Hazardous waste disposal to the land is increasing as a result of air and water pollution controls (which capture hazardous wastes from other media and transfer them to land) and denial of heretofore accepted methods of disposal such as ocean dumping. 2 o Current expenditures by generators for treatment and disposal of such wastes are low relative to what is required for adequate treat- ment/disposal. Oce n dumping and simple land disposal costs are on the order of $3 per ton whereas environmentally adequate management could require as much as $60 per ton if all costs are internalized. o Federal, State, and local legislation and regulations dealing with the treatment and disposal of non-radioactive hazardous waste are generally spotty or nonexistent. At the Federal level, the Clean Mr Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act provide control authority over the incineration, water and ocean disposal of certain hazardous wastes, but not over the land disposal of residues. Fourteen other Federal laws deal in a peripheral manner with the management of hazardous wastes, and approximately 25 States have limited hazardous waste regulatory authority. o Given this permissive legislative climate, generators of waste are under little or no pressure to expend resources for the adequate management of their hazardous wastes. There are few economic incentives (given the high costs of adequate management compared to costs of current practice) for generators to dispose of wastes in adequate ways. V ------- Technology is available to treat most hazardous waste streams by physical, chemical, thermal and biological methods, and for disposal of residues. Use of such treatment/disposal processes is costly, ranging from a low of $1.40/ton for carbon sorption, $lO/ ton for neutralization/precipitation and $13.60/ton for chemical oxidation, to $95/ton for incineration. 4 Several unit processes are usually required for complete treatment/disposal of a given waste stream. Transfer and adaptation of existing technology to hazardous waste management may be necessary in some cases. Development of new treatment and disposal methods for some wastes (e.g., arsenic trioxide and arsenites and arsenates of lead, sodium, zinc and potassium) is required. 5 In the absence of treatment processes, interim storage of wastes on land is possible using methods that minimize hazard to the public and the environment (e.g., secure storage, membrane landfills, etc.). A small private hazardous waste management industry has emerged in the last decade, offering treatment/disposal services to generators. The industry currently has capital investments of approxi- mately $25 million and a capacity to handle about 2.5 million tons of hazardous materials yearly, or 25 percent of capacity required nationally. The industry’s current throughput of hazardous waste is about 24 percent of installed capacity or 6 percent of the national total. The low level of utilization of this industry’s services results from the absence of regulatory and economic incentives for generators to manage their hazardous wastes in an environmentally sound manner. This industry could respond over time to provide needed capacity if a national program for hazardous waste management, with strong enforcement capabilities, were created. This industry would, of course, be subject to regulation also. o The chief prograninatic requirement to bring about adequate management of hazardous wastes is the creation of demand and adequate capacity for treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes. A national policy on hazardous waste management should take into consideration environ- mental protection, equitable cost distribution among generators, and recovery of waste materials. o A regulatory approach is best for the achievement of hazardous waste management objectives. A regulatory approach ensures adequate protection of public health and the environment. It will likely result In the creation of treatment/disposal capacity by the private sector without public funding. It will result in the mandatory use of such facilities. Costs of management will be borne by those who generate the hazardous wastes and their customers rather than the public at large and thus cost distribution will be equitable. Private sector management of the wastes in a competitive situation can lead to an appropriate mix of source reduction, treatment, resource recovery and land disposal. vi ------- o A regulatory program will not directly create a prescribed system of national disposal sites, however, due to uncertainties inherent in the private sector response. EPA believes that the private sector will respond to a regulatory program. However, full assurance cannot be given that treatment/disposal facilities will be available in a timely manner for all regions of the Nation nor that facility use charges will be reasonable in relation to cost of services. Also, private enterprise does not appear well suited institutionally to long term security and surveillance of hazardous waste storage and disposal sites. o Based on analyses performed to date, EPA believes that no Government actions to limit the uncertainties in private sector response are appropriate at this time. However, if private capital flow were very slow and adverse environmental effects were resulting from the investment rate, indirect financial assistance in forms such as loans, loan guarantees or Investment credits could be used to accelerate investment. If facility location or user charge problems arose, the Government could impose a franchise system with territorial limits and user charge rate controls. Long term care of hazardous waste storage and disposal facilities could be assured by mandating use of Federal or State land for such facilities. o EPA studies indicate that treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes at central processing facilities is preferable to management at each point of generation in most cases due to economies of scale, decreased environmental risk, and increased opportunities for resource recovery. However, other forces may deter creation of the “regional processing facility” type of system. For example, the pending effluent limitation guidelines now being developed under authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act may force each generator to install water treatment facilities for both hazardous and nonhazardous aqueous waste streams. Consequently, the absolute volume of hazardous wastes requiring further treatment at central facilities may be reduced and the potential for economies of scale at such facilities may not be as strong as it is currently. o Given these uncertainties, several projections of future events can be made. Processing capacity required nationally was estimated assuming complete regulation, treatment and disposal of all hazardous wastes at the earliest practicable time period. Estimates were based on a postulated scenario in which approximately 20 regional treatment/disposal facilities are constructed across the Nation. Of these, 5 would be very large facilities serving major industrial areas treating 1.3 million tons yearly each, and 15 would be medium size facilities each treating 160,000 tons annually. An estimated 8.5 million tons of hazardous wastes would be treated/disposed of away from the v i i ------- point of generation (off-site); 1.5 million tons would be pre- treated by generators on-site, with 0.5 million tons of residues transported to off-site treatment/disposal facilities for further processing. Each regional processing facility was assumed to pro- vide a complete range of treatment processes capable of handling all types of hazardous wastes, and, therefore, each would be much more costly than existing private facilities. Capital requirements to create the system described above are approximately $940 million. Average annual operating expenditures (including capital recovery and operating costs) of $620 million would be required to sustain the program. These costs are roughly estimated to be equivalent to 1 percent of the value of shipments from industries directly impacted. In addition, administrative expenses of about $20 million annually for Federal and State regulatory programs would be necessary. For the reasons stated earlier, however, capacity and capital requirements for a national hazardous waste management system may be smaller than Indicated above, and more in line with the capacity and capital availability of the existing hazardous waste management industry. o In summary, the conclusions of the study are that (1) a hazardous waste management problem exists and its magnitude is increasing; (2) the technical means to solve the problem exist for most hazardous waste but are costly in comparison with present practices; (3) the legislative and economic Incentives for using available techno- logy are not sufficient to cause environmentally adequate treatment! disposal in most cases; (4) the most effective solution at least direct cost to the public Is a program for the regulation of hazardous waste treatment/disposal; (5) a private hazardous waste management service industry exists and is capable of expanding under the stimulus of a regulatory program; (6) due to inherent uncertainties, private sector response cannot be definitely prescribed; (7) several alternatives for government action are available, but, based on analyses to date, EPA is not convinced that such actions are needed. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed legislation to the Congress which is intended to fulfill the purposes of Section 212 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, and to carry out the recom- mendations of this report. The proposed Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973 would authorize a regulatory program for treatment/disposal of EPA—designated hazardous wastes; the States would Implement the program subject to Federal standards in most cases. All studies performed In response to Section 212 will be completed in time to serve as useful input to Congressional consideration of our legislative proposal. viii ------- Section 1 INTRODUCTION The Congressional Mandate In 1970, Congress perceived hazardous waste storage and disposal to be a problem of national concern. Section 212 of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-512--an amendment to P.1. 89-272), enacted on October 26, 1970, required that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepare a comprehensive report to Congress on storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. ihat section stated: “The Secretary* shall submit to the Congress no later than two yearst after the date of enactment of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, a comprehensive report and plan for the creation of a system of national disposal sites for the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes, including radioactive, toxic chemical, biological, and other wastes which may endanger public health or welfare. Such report shall include: (1) a list of materials which should be subject to disposal at any such site; (2) current methods of disposal of such materials; (3) recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery or disposal of such materials; (4) an inventory of possible sites including existing land or water disposal sites operated or licensed by Federal agencies; (5) an estimate of the cost of developing and maintaining sites Including considera- tion of means for distributing the short- and long-term costs of operating such sites among the users thereof; and (6) such other information as may be appropriate . 0 The EPA Response This document represents EPA’s Report to the President and the Congress summarizing the Agency’s Investigations and recomendations * The Secretary 0 f Health, Education and Welfare; Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1970 transferred authority to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. t EPA requested and received a time extension for submission of this report until June 30, 1973, since appropriation of funds to Implement the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 was delayed for 8 months after enactment. I ------- concerning hazardous wastes in response to the Congressional mandate. All information required by the mandate is included In the report and its appendices. This report provides a definition of current status, Issues and options. rt does not purport to provide a complete solution to the hazardous waste management problem. Section 212 requires an evaluation of a system of national disposal sites (NDS) for the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes as a solution to the hazardous waste problem. To evaluate the NDS concept properly, it Is necessary to view it in the context of the total problem. On probing the problem, EPA determined that several means of accomplishing the NDS objective exist. To provide the Congress with maximum flexibility of action, EPA elected to investigate and evaluate severa’ alternative solutions. A series of Interrelated contractor and in-house studies was under— taken for the specific purpose of complying with Section 212 of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970: 0 The first study, upon which subsequent fforts were based, Quantified the hazardous waste problem.° From a thorough Titerature survey and contacts with various trade and tech- nical associations, government agencies, and Industry, a list of hazardous materials was compiled, and each candidate substance on this list was rated according to the nature and severity of its hazardous properties. In addition, volume and distribution data (both by geography and by industry groups) was gathered, and current hazardous waste handling and disposal practices were surveyed. It was found that the magnitude of the hazardous waste problem was larger than originally anticipated, and that current disposal practices are generally inadequate. o Next, a more detailed technical study on the properties of these materials and their treatment and disposal methods was conducted. 7 A “profile report” was written on each listed substance sumarizing Its physical, chemical, and toxicological properties, Its industrial uses, and the hazards associated with proper handling and disposal methods. Each “profile report” Incorporated a critical evaluation of currently used and available technology for the handling, storage, transport, neutralization, detoxification, reuse, and disposal of the particular substance. Also, advanced methods of hazardous waste treatment were surveyed, and research and development needs were formulated. The study showed that treatment and disposal technology is available for most hazardous wastes. 0 A favorable public attitude Is essential for the successful implementation of any nationwide hazardous waste management 2 ------- program. Therefore, a third study was undertaken to determine citizen awareness and attitudes regarding the hazardous waste problem) and reaction to the possibility of having a treatment and disposal facility located In the vicinity. 8 The majority of citizens sampled were found to be in favor of regional processing facilities for hazardous wastes since such facili- ties would increase environmental protection and stimulate the economy of the region. A fourth study analyzed and compared alternative methods of hazardous waste management. 9 It was concluded that there are three basic approaches: (a) process hazardous wastes “on-site,” i.e., at the plant where they are generated; (b) process “off-site” at some regional facility (either public or private); Cc) combine “on-site° pretreatment with “off-site” treatment and disposal. These basic alternatives were evaluated with respect to economics, risk, and legal and institutional issues. The study indicated that option (b) is preferable for most hazardous waste streams* and option (c) is preferable for dilute aqueous toxic metal wastes. o A fifth comprehensive study examined the feasibility of a system national disposal sites (NDS) for hazardous wastes.’ Potential locations for regional processing and disposal sites were identified. Conceptual designs of hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities were developed based on multi-component waste streams charac- teristic of industry. Capital and operational costs esti- mates were made, and funding and cost distribution mechanisms were examined. o Lastly, a strategy analysis was performed, based on information from the previous studies. It was concluded that a regulatory program is the best approach to the hazardous waste problem. The case for hazardous waste regulation is discussed in Section 3. Issues of implementation are evaluated in Section 4 and findings and recooTnendations are given in Section 5. A review of the hazardous waste disposal problem precedes these discussions. * In this report the term “waste stream” refers to mass flow in the engineering process sense, and not necessarily to a liquid stream. 3 ------- Section 2 IDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM Inadequate hazardous waste management has the potential of causing adverse public health and environmental impacts. These impacts are directly attributable to the acute (short range or ininediate) or chronic (long range) effects of the associated hazardous compound or combination of compounds, and production quantities and distribution. 11 , 12 Many cases document the inininent and long-term danger to man or his environment from improper disposal of such hazardous wastes. For example: o Several people in Minnesota were hospitalized in 1972 after drinking well water contaminated by an arsenic waste buried 30 years ago on nearby agricultural land. o Since 1953 an Iowa company has dumped several thousand cubic yards of arsenic-bearing wastes on a site located above an aquifer supplying a city’s water. Arsenic content in nearby monitoring well samples has been measured as high as 175 ppm; the U.S. Public Health Service drinking water standards reconinend an arsenic content less than 0.05 ppm. o In Colorado a number of farm cattle recently died of cyanide poisoning caused by indiscriminate disposal of cyanide-bearing wastes at a dump site upstream. Additional case studies citing the effects of hazardous waste mismanagement are given in Appendix A. Discussed in this section are: the types, forms, sources, and quantities of hazardous waste; the current status of treatment and disposal technology; and the economic incentives bearing on hazardous waste treatment and disposal. The Nature of Hazardous Wastes The term “hazardous waste” means any waste or combination of wastes which pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or living organisms because such wastes are lethal, nondegradable, persistent In nature, biologically magnified, or otherwise cause or tend to cause detrimental cumulative effects. 13 General categories of hazardous waste are toxic chemical, flaninable, radioactive, explosive and biological. These wastes can take the form of solids, sludges, liquids, or gases. The sources of hazardous wastes are numerous and widely scattered throughout the nation. Sources consist of Industry, the Federal Government (mainly the AEC and DOD), agriculture, and various insti- tutions such as hospitals and laboratories. 4 ------- During this study waste streams containing hazardous compounds were identified and quantified by industrial source (see Appendix B). These waste streams were selected by utilizing a decision model (see Appendix C) 14 which is relatively unsophisticated compared to that required for standard setting purposes. Therefore, the hazardous compounds and waste streams cited in this report should be considered as illustrative and not necessarily those that should be regulated. From these data, the total quantity of non-radioactive hazardous waste streams generated by industrial sources in 1970 was estimated to be 10 million tons (9 million metric tons), or approximately 10 percent of the 110 million tons (100 pillion metric tons) of all wastes generated by industry annual1y. 1 This quantity includes most industrial wastes generated from contractor operated government facilities. Approximately 70 percent of industrial hazardous wastes are generated in the mid Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Gulf Coast areas of the United States (see Table 2.1). About 90 percent by weight of industrial hazardous wastes are generated in the form of liquid streams of which approximately 40 percent are inorganic, and 60 percent are organic materials. Representative hazardous waste substances have been cross-indexed by industrial sources in Figure 2.1. It is important to recognize that these hazardous substances are constituents of waste streams, and it is these waste streams which require treatment, storage, and disposal. Sources of radioactive wastes are: nuclear power generation and fuel reprocessing facilities; private sources, such as medical, R&D, and industrial laboratories; and government sources (AEC and DOD). Quantities of radioactive wastes generated in 1970 from the first two sources have been identified in Table 2.2. Only a limited amount of information is available on source material, special nuclear material or by-product materials from government operations. Such information is related to weapons production and is therefore classified. Disposal of uranium mill tailings represents a unique problem similar in magnitude to the disposal of all industrial hazardous wastes. Several Federal agencies are working on the problem at present; a satisfactory disposal or recovery method has not yet been defined. Aside from uranium mill tailings, the quantity of radioactive wastes associated with the coniiiercial nuclear electric power Industry and other private sources is estimated to be approximately 24,000 tons (22,000 metric tons) per year at present, or less than one percent of the total hazardous wastes from all industry. Toxic Wastes . Practically all of the estimated 10 million tons (9 million metric tons) of non-radioactive hazardous waste generated annually in the United States falls into the toxic category. In the context of this report toxicity is defined as the ability of a waste to produce injury upon contact with or accumulation in a susceptible site In or on the body of a living organism. Most toxic wastes belong to one or more of four categories: (1) inorganic toxic metals, salts, acids or bases, (2) synthetic organics, (3) flaniiiables, (4) explosives. There is considerable overlap within these waste categories. For example, a synthetic organic waste may be flamable and explosive, and it may also contain toxic metals. Flammable and explosive wastes are often categorized as separate hazardous waste entities; however, 5 ------- Table 2.1 Estimated Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation by Region* (Tons/Year) Sludges, p Percent Region Inorganic in Aqueous Organics in Aqueous Organics S lurrles ,Solids Total of Total tons metric tons tons metric tons tons metric tons tons nietrIa .t ns tons metric tons New England O0 (86,000) 17o,000 (154,000) 7OO0 (30,000) 7O0O (5,450) 30 0 (275,450) 3.1 Mid Atlantic 1,000,000 (907,200) 1,100,000 (1,000,000) 105,000 (90,600) 55,000 (50,000) 2,260,000 2,047,8O0) 22.9 East North Central 1,300,000 (1,180,000) 850,000 (770,000) 145,000 (132,000) 90,000 (81,600) 2,385,000 (2,163,600) 24.2 West North Central 65,000 (59,000) 260,000 (236,000) 49,500 (45,000) 18,500 (16,800) 393,000 (350,800) 4.0 South Atlantic 230,000 (208,500) 600,000 (545,000) 75,000 (68,000) 80,000 (72.600) 985,000 (894,100) 10.0 East South Central 90,000 (81,700) 385,000 (350,000) 44,000 (40,000) 9,500 (8,600) 528,000 (480 300) 5.4 West South Central 320,000 (290,000) 1,450,000 (1,315,000) 180,000 (163,000) 39,000 (35,400) 1,989,000 (1,803,400) 20.2 West (Pacific) 120,000 (109,000) 550,000 (500,000) 113,000 (103,000) 30,500 (27,770) 813,500 (739,770) 8.3 Mountain 125,000 (113,500) 5,000 (4,540) 50,000 (45,400) 11,500 (10,400) 191,500 (173 840) 1.9 TOTALS 3,345,000 (3,034,900) 5,370,000 (4,874,540) 794,500 (717,000) 340,000 (308,620) 9,849,500 (8,929,060) 100.0 * Refers to Bureau of Census regions, as defined in Appendix B. P Predominantly Inorganic. Note: Data for 1970 SOURCE: EPA Contract No. 68-01—0762 ------- Figure 2.1 Representati ye Hazardous Substances Wi thin Industrial Waste Streams * Hazardous Substances Industry Mining & Metallurgy Paint & Dye Pesticide Electrical & Electronic Printing & Duplicating Electroplating & Metal Finishing Chemical Manufacturing Explosives Rubber & Plastics Battery Pharmaceutical Textile Petroleum & Coal Pulp & Paper Leather x ,x x x x x x x I I p I I I I I I :x:x:x:x:x: XIX’ ———4—— a 1 I I I I I I x 1 X IXIXIXI x .a I I I I I I I I x , xxxx’ .1 I I I I I I I I x x{x IxI x . 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ix: xxx I I I I I I I I I _• I I I I I $ x x: x ‘, J - 1 I I I I I I I I x ————.p———.p _I 1 I I I I I I I I : ‘ : .J___I. -I I I I I I I x XIX’ .J———t I I I I I I X I ‘ 1 I X’ x 1 1 .J___ 1 . -) I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I IA ,X X , ————I-———. . .J___,.___p -1 I I I I I I I I x : X : : :x: —I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I i 1 A A .J___l. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ix , I I I X a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . — . -,.— * Including pol ’chlorlnated b-iphenyls t E.g.: acrolein, chloropicrin , dimethyl sulfate, dinitrobenzene, dinitrophenol, rutroaniline, and pentachlorophenol. 0 / // 7 ------- Table 2.2 Estimate of Radioactive Waste Generated h 1970 j jor Radioactive Waste Stream Source Form Total Annual Curies Tons/year Metric Tons/year Elements sludge 4,400,00 solid or liquid 2,240 solid or liquid solid or liquid sludges, solids or liquids * Uranium mill tailings from extraction of uranium ores. a, 9.0 x l0 4.0 x l0 I 1neral Extraction * (Uranium) Commercial Nuclear Electric Power Miscellaneous Private Sources Government Sources All Known Sources 4,000,000 2,000 2.Ox l0 11,000-22,000 10,000-20,000 Not Available Not Available Not Available 4.Ox l0 4,413,240 4,012,000 Ra, Th, Pb, & P0 U,Th, Ra, Pu, Ag Fe, H, Mn, Ni, Co, Ru, Cs, Ce, Sr, Sb, Pm, Eu, Am & Cm Co, Sr, Pm, Cs, Pu, Am, & Cm Pu, Am & Cm Source: EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762 ------- they are generally toxic and will be discussed here. Many radioactive and some biological wastes are also toxic, but they will be discussed separately. Toxic Metals . Ap roximately 25 percent of the metals in common usage today are toxic metals.’ 6 The concentration and chemical form of toxic metals determine their potential health and environmental hazards. Some metals are essential to life at low concentrations but are toxic at higher concentrations .l 7 l 8 AlsiA a pure metal is usually not as dangerous as a metallic compound (salt). ‘ The largest quantities of toxic metal waste streams are produced by the mining and metallurgy and the electroplating and metal finishing industries. For example, arsenic-containing flue dusts collected from the smelting of copper, lead, zinc and other arsenic-bearing ores amount to 40,000 tons (36,200 metric tons) per year. Approximately 30,000 tons (27,200 metric tons) of chromium-bearing waste is discharged from the metal finishing industry annually. Synthetic Organics . Hazardous synthetic organic compounds include halogenated hydrocarbon pesticides (such as endrin), polycholorinated biphenyls (PCB), phenols, etc. An estimated 5,000 tons (4,540 m ric tons) of synthetic organic pesticide wastes were produced in 1970. The Department of Defense (DOD) currently has 850 tons (770 metric tons) of dry pesticides and 15,000 tons (13,600 metric tons) in liquid form requiring disposal. Most of the liquid form consists of agent orange herbi de (a mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T) banned from use in South Vietnam.’’ These stocks contain significant quantities of a teratogeriic dioxin. There are disposal requirements caused by the increasing numbers of waste pesticide containers as well. Over 2 0 million pesticide containers of all types will be used this year alone. 2 ’ Flammables . Flammable wastes consist mainly of contaminated organic solvents, but may include oils, pesticides, plasticizers, complex organic sludges, and off-specification chemicals. Highly flammable wastes can pose acute handling and chronic disposal hazards. Hazards related to disposal may exceed those of transportation and handling if sufficient waste volumes are involved. The nationwide quantities of flammable wastes have not been assessed as a separate category, but are included in the totals given previously. Explosives . Explosive wastes are mainly obsolete ordnance, manufacturing wastes from the explosives industry, and contaminated industrial gases. The largest amount of explosive waste is generated by the Department of Defense (DOD). An inventory by the DOD Joint Commanders Panel on Disposal Ashore indicates that the military has accumulated about l Q,00O tons (136,080 metric tons) of obsolete conventional ammunition. “ The former practice of loading obsolete munitions on ships and sinking them in the ocean has been discontinued. Final disposal is being delayed until a more suitable disposal method is available. A Joint Army, Navy, NASA and Air Force (JANNAF) group is working to resolve this impasse. Most waste materials generated by the coimiiercial explosives industry consist of chemical wastes that are not clearly separable from wastes produced by large industrial chemical firms (e.g., ammonia, nitric acid, sulfuric 9 ------- acid, some common organic chemicals, etc.). These wastes represent a greater problem than military wastes because of uncontrolled disposal practices. Open burning of explosives, which is widely practiced, can result in the emission of harmful nitrogen oxides and other pollutants. Radioactive Wastes. 24 Most radioactive wastes consist of conventional non-radioactive materials contaminated with radionuclides. The concen- tration of the latter can range from a few parts per billion to as high as 50 percent of the total waste. Frequently, many radionuclides are involved in any given waste, Radioactive wastes are customarily categorized as low- or high-level wastes, depending upon the concentrations of radio- nuclides. However, the long term hazard associated with each waste is not necessarily proportional to the nominal “level” of radioactivity, but rather to the specific toxicity and decay rate of each radionuclide. The most significant radionuclides, from the standpoint of waste management, decay with half-lives of months to hundreds of thousands of years. For the purposes of this study, the term high level wastes refers to those requiring special provisions for dissipation of heat produced by radioactive decay. Low level waste refers to all others. The biological hazard from radioactive wastes is primarily due to the effects of penetrating and ionizing radiation rather than to chemical toxicity. On a weight basis, the hazard from certain radionuclides is more acute than the most toxic chemicals by about six orders of magnitude. The hazard from radionuclides cannot be neutralized by chemical reaction or by any currently practicable scheme. Thus, the only currently practical way to “neutralize” a radionijcJide is to allow its decay. Storage of wastes containing radionuclides under carefully controlled conditions to assure their containment and isolation is necessary during this decay period. The time period necessary for decay of radionuclides to levels acceptable for release to the environment varies with each waste. Radionuclides may be present in gaseous, liquid, or solid form. Solid wastes p se are not normally important as potential contaminants in the bioshpere iTh til they become airborne (usually as particulates) or water—borne (by leaching). Consequently, environmental effects and existin regulatory limits are based primarily on concentrations in air and water. Biological Wastes . Biological wastes were divided into two categories for this study: pathological hospital wastes and warfare agents. Pathological wastes from hospitals are usually less infectious than biological warfare agents. Both types of wastes may also be toxic. For example, toxins produced by various strains of microorganisms may be just as hazardous as the associated infectivity of the organism. Approximately 170,000 tons (154,000 metric tons) of pathological wastes are generated by hospitals annually, which is approximately 4 percen of the total 4.2 million tons (3.7 million metric tons) of all hospital 10 ------- wastes generated per year. 25 ’ 26 These wastes include malignant or benign tissues taken during autopsies, biopsies, or surgical procedures, animal carcasses and wastes, hypodermic needles, off-specification or outdated drugs, microbiological wastes, and bandaging materials. Biological Warfare (BW) Agents . These are selected primarily because of their ability: (1) to penetrate outer epithelial tissues of plants or animals and (2) to spread rapidly. Antipersonnel agents like Bacillus anthrax are cultured to affect a specific animal, whereas anticrop agents like Puccinia graminis (Lx) (Rice blast) are used to inhibit growth of specific plants. DOD representatives have advised EPA that all stockpiles of biological warfare agents, including antipersonnel and anticrop agents, have been destroyed.27 Due to the Administration’s policy of restricting production of BW agents, the total quantity to be disposed of should be small in the future. Chemical Warfare Agents . Production of chemical warfare agents such as ND (mustard), GB, and VX has been discontinued, but significant stockpiles of these agents must be treated and disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. The Department of the Army is in the process of demilitarizing HD (mustard) at Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado, and is presently studying the feasibility of demilitarizing GB and VX by means of incineration. The exact quantity of chemical agents to be incinerated is classified, but it has been estimated that after the treatment process there will be approximately 70,000 tons (63,600 metric tons) of residual salts that will require proper disposal. Factors Influencing the Growth of Hazardous Wastes . A number of factors will increase the quantities of hazardous wastes generated in the future and will affect their disposal requirements. Some of these factors are production and consumption rates, legislative and regulatory actions, energy requirements, and recycling incentives. National production and consumption rates are increasing 4 to 6 percent each year, while resource recovery from wastes is declining. During the period 1948 to 1968, U.S. consumption of selected toxic metals increased 43 percent. 28 Since 1954, production of synthetic organic chemicals has increased at an average rate of 10.5 percent per year. 29 Included in the latter category are such materials as dyes, pigments, and pesticides. Some of these products contain heavy metals in addition to organic constituents. Similar data indicating production growth can be cited for most industries which generate hazardous waste. There is a correlation between the amount of production and waste generated. Therefore, it can be concluded that hazardous waste generation rates will generally parallel industrial production rates. 11 ------- Changing product material content also has an impact. For example, increasing polyvinyichioride (PVC) plastics usage results in more mercury- bearing wastes from the chlorine production industry; in the computer industry, changeover from vacuum tube technology to integrated circuit board technology has resulted in increased generation of acid etchant wastes containing heavy metals. The Nation’s projected energy requirements are driving utilities towards construction of nuclear powered facilities. As of September 1972, there were 28 nuclear power plants in operation, 52 were being built, and 70 more were being planned. Operation of the additional 122 nuclear power plants will definitely increase the quantities of radioactive wastes. ° Shortages of clean burning high grade coal have initiated a trend to utilize lower grades of coal, which contain larger amounts of arsenic and mercury; therefore, aqueous wastes from the scrubbers and ashes from coal burning furnaces will contain increased quantities of toxic wastes. Enforcement of new consumer and occupational safety legislation could result in product bans with attendant disposal requirements. More stringent air and water effluent controls, new pesticide controls, and the new restrictions on ocean dumping of wastes will result in larger quantities of hazardous wastes in more concentrated form requiring disposal. As air, water and ocean disposal options are closed off, there will be increased pressure for improvements in production efficiency, for recovery and recycling of hazardous substances, and for disposal of hazardous wastes on or under the land. Public Health and Environmental Effects In order for an organic or inorganic hazardous compound within a waste to affect public health and the environment it must be present in a certain concentration and form. Public health and environmental ef c are directly correlated with thE concentration and duration of exposure. ‘ This has been better doc11T1ente for acute effects resulting from high concentrations over a short period of time than for c onic effects resulting from low concentrations over a long period of time. 3 Most Of the work to establish chronic effects has been done on lower animals, and extrapolating the evidence directly to man becomes difficult because of species variations. 34 Synergistic or antagonistic interactions between hazardous compounds and other constituents within the waste can enhance or modify the overall effects of the particular hazardous compound. As an example, the effects of mercury salts with trace amounts of copper will be considerably accentuat in a suitable environment. 12 ------- The form of a hazardous waste is also very critical because it determines if a toxic substance is releasable to the ambient environment. As an example, an insoluble salt of a toxic metal bound up within a sludge mass that is to be disposed of at a landfill does not present the same degree of immediate threat to public health and the environment as a soluble salt of the same metal that is unbound going to the same landfill. The interaction between biological systems and hazardous wastes is unpredictable, and in many cases the end product is more lethal than the original waste. An example is the conversion of inorganic mercury by anaerobic bacteria into methyl mercury. Furthermore, persistent toxic substances can accumulate within tissues of mammals as do certain radioisotopes. Under these circum- stances, substances that are persistent in the ambient environment even though in low concentrations will be magnified in the living system. As a result, critical concentrations may accumulate in tissues and cause detectable physi ol ogi cal effects. Cancers and birth defects are only a few of the recorded physiological effects that have been correlated with the presence of hazardous compounds in mar,. Other milder effects have also been recorded like headaches, nausea, and indigestion. In the environment, the effects of hazardous wastes are manifested by such events as fish kills, reduced shellfish production, or improper egg shell synthesis. 35 This evidence points to the fact that hazardous wastes are detrimental to public health and the environment. Therefore, the real issue is to document the fact that present management practices for treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous wastes do not provide the necessary reassurances that man or the environment are being adequately protected. Present Treatment and Disposal Technology Treatment processes for hazardous waste streams should perform the following functions: (1) volume reduction where required, (2) component separation, (3) detoxification, and (4) material recovery. No single process can perform all these functions; several different processes linked in series are required for adequate treatment. Residues from these processes, or all hazardous wastes if treatment is bypassed, require ultimate. disposal. Treatment and disposal technology is available to process most hazardous waste streams. Table 2.3 lists the hazardous waste treatment and disposal processes examined during the course of this study. General applicability of these processes to types and forms of hazardous wastes is indicated. Many of these processes have been utilized previously for managing hazardous wastes in industry and government. Several processes have capabilities for resource recovery. Selection of appropriate methods depends on the type, form and volume of waste, the type of process required to achieve adequate control, and relative economics of processes. 13 ------- Table 2.3 ‘ Currently Available Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Processes Process Functions Performed Applicable to Waste Resource Recovery Capability Types Forms 123 45 6 7 8 S LG A. Physical Treatment Cal ci nation Ion Exchange Neutral i zation Dxi dati on Precipitation Reducti on Pyrolysis Incineration 0. Biological Treatment Acti vated Si udges Aerated Lagoons Waste Stabilization Trickling Filters Deep Well Injection Detonation Engineered Storage Land Burial Ocean Dun inq Vol. Reduction Vol. Reduc./Separ. Detoxtfi cati on Detoxi fi cation Detoxi fi cation Vol. Reduc./Separ. Detoxi fl cation Detoxi fl cati on Detoxification Detoxi fi cation Detoxification xx x xx xx xx xxx x x x x x x xx xx 5. Radiological 6. Biological 7. Flan.nable 8. Explosive Waste Form: S - Solid I — Liquid G - Gas Yes Yes Yes Source: EPA Contract Nos. 68-03-0089, 68-01-0762 and 68-01-0556. Carbon Sorption Dialysis Electro dialysis Evaporation Filtration Flocculation-Settling Reverse Osmosis Stri ppi ny-Aninoni a B. Chemical Treatment Vol. Vol. Vol. Vol. Vol. Vol. Vol. Vol. Reduc . /Separ. Re duc . /Sep ar. Reduc. fSepar. Reduc./Separ. Reduc. /Sèpar. Reduc. /Separ. Reduc. /Separ. Reduc./Separ. x xxx xxxx xxxx xx x xxxxx xxxxx xx x x x Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes C. Thermal Treatment x x x x x x Vol. Reduc./Detox. Detox . /Di sposal xx x x x xx x x x x x x x x x xx x xx x x x x x x xx x x x x xx .x x x xx x x xxx Ponds x x x x x x x E. Disposal/Storag x x x x x Disposal Disposal Storage Disposal Disposal xxx Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No No xx xx x •x x x x x x x x Waste Type: 1. Inorganic Chemical w/o Heavy Metals 2. Inorganic chemical w/Heavy Metals 3. Organic Chemical w/o Heavy Metals 4. Organic Chemical w/Heavy Metals 14’ ------- Several treatment processes perform more than one function, or are applicable to more than one type or form of waste. For example, evaporat-fc i provides both volume reduction and component separation for inorganic liquids Carbon sorption and filtration provide component separation for both liquids and gases, and are applicable to a wide range of heterogeneous waste stre nis. Both carbon sorption and evaporation are capable of large throughput rates. Neutralization, re gc ,on and precipitation are effective for separation of most heavy metals. Certain weaknesses are inherent in some treatment processes. For example, the five biological treatment processes are inefficient when waste streams are highly variable in composition and concentration, or when solutions contain more than 1—5 percent salts. 38 Furthermore, biological treatment processes require larger land areas for facilities than the other physical or chemical processes. The efficiency of removal of hazardous liquids and gases from waste streams by carbon sorption is strongly dependent on pH. Similarly, the four dissolved solids removal processes (ion exchange, reverse osmosis, dialysis, and electrodialysis) are all subject to operational problems when utilized for treating heterogeneous brines. 39 Radioactive emissions and effluents from production or reprocessing facilities are routinely controlled by a variety of treatment methods. High efficiency filters are used to remove radioactive particulates from gaseous effluents; caustic scrubbers of charcoal absorbers are used to remove radioactive gases. Liquid effluents containing small quantities of soluble or insoluble radioactive constituents are usually treated with conventional water treatment techniques suck as ion exchange, settling, precipitation, filtration, and evaporation. 0 Commonly used disposal processes for hazardous wastes include land burial, deep well injection, and ocean dumping. Detonation and open burning are sometimes used for disposal of explosives. Incineration is used for disposal of some organic chemicals, biologicals, and flammables. All disposal processes have potential for adverse public health and environmental effects if used unwisely or without appropriate controls. Land disposal sometimes consists of indiscriminate dumping on the land with attendant public health problems from animal vectors, water pollution from surface water run off and leaching to ground waters, and air pollution from open burning, wind blown particulates and gas venting. Sanitary landfills are much preferable to dumps in that daily earth cover minimizes vector problems, open burning and particulate transport. Unless specially designed, however, sanitary landfills still have potential for surface and ground water pollution and air pollution from gas venting. Deep well injection of liquid and semi-liquid wastes can pollute ground waters unless great care is taken in site selection and construction and operation of such wells. EPA policy opposes deep well injection unless all 15 ------- other alternatives have been found to be less satisfactory in tetmis of environmental protection, and unless extensive hydraulic and geologic studies are made to ensure that ground water pollution will be minimized. Environmental problems associated with ocean dumping have long been recognized. The Congress recently passed legislation to control ocean dumping of wastes (see Section 3). Incineration, open burning, and detonation all can result in air pollution unless adequate controls are employed. The residues from incineration, and from associated pollution control devices, may require special care in disposal. Selection of appropriate treatment and disposal methods for a given waste is a complex process. It is simplistic to assume that a treatment and disposal process is applicable to all wastes of a given category. For example, available treatment and disposal processes for three types of heavy metal hazardous wastes are illustrated in Figure 2.2. It can be seen that significant differences exist. Transfer and adaptation of existing technology to hazardous waste management may be necessary in some cases. Some hazardous waste streams (e.g., those containing arsenites and arsenates of lead, sodium, zinc and potassium, and arsenic trioxide) cannot be treated or disposed of adequately with existing technology. 41 Secured storage is available until the appropriate treatment/disposal technology is developed. Synopses of treatment and disposal processes are given in Appendix D. Public Use of Existing Technology . The Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense presently utilize almost all the processes identified in Table 2.3 for management of hazardous wastes. High level radioactive treatment and storage sites operated by AEC are located at Hanford, Washingi Savannah River, South Carolina; and the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho. Similar DOD operated non-radioactive hazardous waste treatment, stoi and disposal sites are located at a great number of arsenals, depots, and amunition plants throughout the country. Private Use of Existing Technolqg y . Some large manufacturers, notably in the chemical industry, have established in-house hazardous waste processing facilities which utilize some of the treatment and disposal processes listed in Table 2.3. EPA-held data on such in-house operations are sparse. Based on available ocean and land disposal data it is estimated, however, that only a small percentage of the hazardous wastes generated by industry receive treatment and are disposed of at in-house facilities. The Hazardous Waste Processing Industry . In recognition of this situation several private companies have built facilities to treat, dispose, and recycle many hazardous wastes. These companies sell waste processing 16 ------- FIgure 2.2 Examples of tnterrelationsMp Between Hazardous Wastes and Treatment/ lsposal Processes A. Concentrated Heavy Metals Hexavalent ( rcxni r — i Heavy Metal - ———---- Heavy Metal Sl 2ige Disposal L du i J Po1 mer Encapsulation and Burial Ca ut , Arsenic Mercuxy— Heavy Metal Heavy Metal Sluc e Disposal Sulfide Precipitation [ Ceterit_Encapsulation and Burial B. Heavy Metals with Organics Heavy Metal rI Heavy Metal Sluóe Disposal Arsenic and Organic Sulfide Precipitation J [ Tent Encapsulation and Burial (Dilute Hydrocarbon) + Incineration of Dilute Hydrocarbon _____ neration of Dilute }Ialoqenated - - ,,,.. — I roca±on Sen i 4 T [ ctivated onl generat1 Sonroe: EPA Contract No. 68-01-0556 ------- services to industries in their area, generally within a 500 mile (805 kilometer) radius. However, largely because of lack of demand for services, these regional waste processing plants still are few in number (about ten nationwide) and operate at about 25 percent of available capacity. The total processing capacity of all facilities is approximately 2.5 million tons (2.3 million metric tons) per year. Operating at full capacity, these private processing firms presently could handle about 25 percent of the total nationwide non-radioactive hazardous wastes. None of these facilities provide a complete range of treatment and disposal processes capable of handling all types of hazardous wastes. Table 2.4 presents a suninary of information available on these firms. As stated earlier, nuclear weapons production facilities, coninercial nuclear power reactors and private sources generate a substantial quantity of high- and low-level radioactive wastes. High level wastes are controlled by the AEC. Management of low level wastes by private companies at AEC or cooperative State sites is a highly specialized business with limited markets. As a result there are only two companies engaged in handling and disposing of low level radioactive wastes. The quantities of radioactive wastes are expected to increase exponentially starting around 1980, and as a result the number of nuclear waste disposal companies should also increase. Economic Incentives The costs associated with proper hazardous waste treatment and disposa are fixed capital-intensive and vary widely, depending on the particular treatment process that is required. Table 2.5 presents typical capital and operating costs for a number of selected processes that are applicable to medium-size regional industrial waste treatment and disposal facilities. These examples illustrate that environmentally adequate technology is expensive. Moreover, to arrive at the actual costs associated with proper treatment of hazardous wastes, a combination of several treatment processes is usually required. The comparative economics of proper hazardous waste management versus presently used environmentally inadequate practices, such as disposal in dumps or in the ocean, are illustrated in Figure 2.3. This figure also depicts the economies of scale that can be attained by use of large waste processing facilities. The cost data used in support of this figure were based on typical treatment and disposal facilities capable of handling aqueous toxic wastes. Figure 2.3 indicates that adequate treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes costs 10 to 40 times more than the environmentally offensive alter- natives. With these kinds of economic differentials, and in the general absence of pressures to do otherwise, one realizes why the more environ- mentally acceptable methods are seldom utilized. Available technology cannot compete economically with the cheaper disposal alternatives. Clean 18 ------- Table 2.4 Summary of Information On Privately Owned Regional Hazardous Waste Processing Plants* Nunber of Regional plants Estimated available capacity Estimated utilization of available capacity Available capacity as percent of required nationwide capacity Regional distribution Total Capital investment Resource Recovery Approximately 10 2,500,000 tons/year (2,272,000 metric tons/year) 25 percent 25 percent Mostly in North Central, Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coast Regions $25 million Limited at present mostly to solvents and metallic salts * This table does not consider very small firms with limited facilities (e.g., those plants that consist solely of an incinerator). 19 ------- Table 2.5 Costs of Representative Hazardous Waste Treatment Processes Process Capacit y Capital Costs 0 eratln Costs ( 1,000 gal ./dayl ( 1,000 liters/day) ( $1,000) ( $11,000 ga . 000 liters) 1. ChemIcal Oxidation 25 94.8 400 68 18 of Cyanide Wastes 2. Chemical Reduction 42 159 340 29 7.65 of Chromium Wastes 3. Neutralization - 120 452 3,000 50 13.20 Precipitation 4. Liquid-SolIds 120 452 9,000 40 10.60 Separation 5. Carbon Sorption 120 452 910 7 1.85 0 6. Evaporation 120 452 510 10 2.64 7. Incineration 74 tons/day 67 metric tons/day 4,900 95($/ton) 105($/metric ton) NOTE: 1. Capital costs Include land, buildings, and complete processing and auxiliary facilities. 2. Operating costs Include neutralization chemicals, labor, utilities, maintenance, amortization charges (7 percent Interest), Insurance, taxes, and administrative expenses. 3. Data corresponds to a typical medium size treatment and disposal facility capable 0 f processing approximately 150 thousand tons (136 thousand metric tons) per year or 600 tons (545 metric tons) per day. SOURCE: EPA Contract no. 68-01-0762 ------- Figure 2.3 a, 4- I • 1 0 0 0 e0 0 0 I n In 0 r’ C U, U, U 0 0 400 ( 106.00 ) 300 ( 79.40) — 200 ( 52.80 ) 100 (25.40) — 50 (13.20)_— 25 (6.60)_ 15 (3.96) 5 (1.32). Cost Comparison of Proper vs. Improper Hazardous Waste Management Practice6 C Z5 120 200 (94.6) (454) (758) Waste Volume, 1,000 gal ./day (1,000 liters/day) Ar Environmentally adequate treatment and disposal ‘8= Land disposal C= Ocean disposal 1 ,000 (3,785) A I, Note: For aqueous wastes Includes capital write-off but not transportation costs from the generator to nearest treatment or disposal facility. Source: EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762 & 68-O3- fl089 ------- there are substantial economic incentives for industry not to use adequat hazardous waste treatment and disposal methods. Should a generator elect to process his hazardous wastes in an environmentally acceptable manner, a basic decision must be made whether the particular waste stream should be processed on-site or off-site at some regional treatment facility, such as existing commercial waste proce! plants. The cost analysis of this problem, as it applies to a number of coniirnnly occurring industrial waste streams, was conducted by means of a mathematical model that produced “economic decision maps.”42 Typical exar are attached in Appendix E. An analysis of the decision maps indicates that cost factors generally favor off-site treatment and disposal of indu hazardous wastes with the exception of dilute aqueous toxic metal streams. Other factors, such as the impact of pending water effluent standards and transportation problems, may alter this judgment. S urn a ry EPA ’s findings relative to the current handling of hazardous wastes can be sunned up as follows: 1. Current treatment and disposal practices are inadequate and cause unnecessary hazards to all life forms. 2. Techniques for safe and environmentally sound treatment and disposal of most hazardous wastes have been developed. Adaptati and transfer of existing technology, and development of new methods, is required in some cases. It is possible to retain hazardous wastes for which treatment/disposal methods are unavai able in long-term storage until their chemical conversion to harmless compounds or their reuse in industrial practice becomes feasible. 3. There are substantial economic incentives for industry not to use environmentally adequate treatment and disposal methods. Such methods are substantially more expensive than current inadequate practices, and in a climate of permissive legislation or total absence of legislation, competitive economic forces result in least-cost disposal regardless of the environmental consequences. 4. A small industry has emerged to treat and dispose of hazardous and other industrial wastes. This industry is not currently operating at capacity because it services are being utilized only by a few clients that are concerned about the environment, or have no cheaper disposal alternatives, or sometimes find themselves forced to use such services because of environmental regulations. This industry, however, has the capability to expand to meet demands engendered by future Federal or State actions. It is evident that a need exists for bringing about environmentally acceptable and safe treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. The next section will discuss the need for a regulatory program in order to achieve this goal. 22 ------- Section 3 THE CASE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS The previous section has shown the potential for public health and environmental damages from mismanagement of hazardous wastes and the lack of economic incentives for proper management. There is a strong precedent for Federal regulation when health damage is at issue. Regu- lation is used because the other conceptual alternative, massive economic incentives, does not ensure compliance. Some forms of regulation, however, may embody certain types of economic incentives. Federal and State statutes have attempted to regulate and control various parts of the problem, but there has never been an attempt to regulate hazardous waste management in a comprehensive manner. The following discusses legislative precedents regarding hazardous wastes and illustrates a legislative gap in the regulation of land disposal of hazardous wastes. Existing Authorities for Hazardous Waste Management A large body of Federal and State law exists today which exerts a significant but peripheral impact on the land disposal of hazardous waste. The following discussion reviews existing laws and assesses their impact on the treatment, storage, transportation, handling, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Federal Control Statutes . Thirteen Federal statutes have varying degrees of direct ii ipact on the management of hazardous wastes. Four additional Federal statutes are either indirectly or potentially applicable to hazardous wastes. The Clean Air Act, as amended, and the new Federal Water Pollution Control Act will be discussed in some detail later in this section. The other statutes and their impact on the treatment, storage, transportation, and handling of hazardous wastes may be sum- marized as follows: 1. The Resource Recovery Act of l97O. Section 212 of the Resource Recovery Act directs the Administrator Of EPA to study the teasibility of a system of national disposal sites for hazard- ous wastes. The Act authorizes no regulatory activities, however. 2. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 44 This statute authorizes the Atomic Energy Co ission to manage radioactive wastes generated in fission reactions both by the AEC and private industry. High level radioactive wastes from weapons and reactor programs are controlled directly by the AEC at 23 ------- its facilities; commercially generated low level radioactive wastes are generally disposed of at facilities licensed and controlled by the States. Naturally occurring materials, such as uranium mill tailings and radium, and radioisotopes produced by cyclotrons are not subject to regulation under the Act. There is room for improvement at the radioactive waste storage and disposal facilities, but by comparison with other hazardous wastes, high level radioactive waste management is well regu- lated. 3-7. The Department of Transportation is responsible for adminis- tering five statutes which affect the transport of hazardous wastes. The oldest of these, the Transportation of Explosives Act 4 5 prohibits the knowing unregulated transport of explosives, i ioactive materials, etiologic (disease-causing) agents, and other dangerous articles in interstate commerce unless the public interest requires expedited movement or such trans- port involves 1 ’no appreciable danger to persons or property.” Supplementing this law is the Hazardous Materials Transporta- tion Act of 1970,46 a non-regulatory statute whi h autho !zes t1 è Secretary of DOT to evaluate hazards associated with hazardous materials transport, establish a central accident reporting system, and recommend improved hazardous materials transport controls. The Safety Regulation of Civil Aeronautics A t 4 7 authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to establish iTI transportation standards “necessary to provide adequately for national securi and safety in air commerce.” The Hazardous Cargo Act’ places regulatory controls on the water transport of explosives or dangerous substances, authorizing the U.S. Coast Guard to publish regulations on packing, marking, labeling, containerization, and certification R such substances. The Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act 4 ’ authorizes the DOT Secretary to identify hazardous substances and prohibits the transport of such substances if their containers have been misbranded or the labels removed. The Act authorizes the seizure of misbranded hazardous substances and requires the courts to direct the ultimate disposition of such seized substances. 8. The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 197250 requires tne Administrator or U A to establish procedures and regulations for the disposal or storage of packages, containers, and excess amounts of pesticides. EPA is also required to “accept at convenient locations for safe disposal” those pesticides whose registration is suspended to prevent an Inininent hazard and later canceled, if the pesticide owner so requests. 51 24 ------- 9. The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 197252 prohibits the transport from the United States for the purpose of ocean dumping any radiological, chemical or biological warfare agents, high level radioactive wastes, or (except as authorized by Federal permit) any other material. In granting permits for ocean dumping, the EPA Administrator must consider “appropriate locations and methods of disposal or recycling, including landbased alter- natives, and the probable impact of [ such use] upon consid- erations affecting the public interest.” 53 10—11. The Clean Air Act 54 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 55 examined In detail later in this section, provide extensive control authority over the incineration and water disposal of certain hazardous wastes. 12. The Poison Packaging Prevention Act 56 authorizes the Secretary oF F{EW to establish special packaging standards for hazardous household substances whenever it can be shown that serious personal injury or illness to children can result from handling, using or ingesting such substances. Hazardous household substances already identified in regulations include oven cleaners, cigarette and charcoal lighter fluids, liquids containing turpentine and methyl alcohol, and economic poisons (pesticides). 13. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 57 prohibits the adulteration and misbranding of certain consumer items and requires the disposal by destruction or sale of any Items seized under the Act. 14. The first of the Federal statutes which have a general, nonregulatory impact on the management of hazardous wast is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Sec. 1OT(b) of NEPA requires the Federal Government to “use all practicable means*I to attain the widest range of beneficial uses without degrading the environment or risking health or safety. In order to ensure that the environmental policies expressed in Sec. 101 are effectively carried out, Sec. 102(2) (C) requires all agencies of the Federal Government to prepare detailed environmental impact statements for all “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” All Federal hazardous waste management activities thus clearly fall within NEPA’s ambit. 15. The Armed Forces Appropriation Authorization Acts of 1969 and l970 prohibit the use of Federal funds for the transportatfon, o ii air testing, or disposal of any lethal chemical or biological warfare agent in the United States except under certain conditions requiring prior determination of the effect on national security, hazards to public health and safety, and practicability of detoxification prior to disposal. 25 ------- 16. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,60 in declaring it a natTöii T policy to preserve and protect the resources of the Nation’s coastal zone, recognizes waste disposal as a “competing demand” on coastal zone lands which has caused “serious environmental losses.” Because applicants for Federal coastal zone management grants must define “permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone,” an applicant’s failure to regulate hazardous waste disposal within such area so that it qualifies as a “permissible use” can serve as a basis for denying program funds under the Act. 17. The Occupational Safe y and Health Act of 197061 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory standards to protect the occupational safety and health of all employers and employees of businesses engaged in interstate comerce. Sec. 6(b)(5) deals specifically with toxic materials and other harmful agents, requiring the Secretary to “set the standard which most adequately assures. . . that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or financial capacity” from regular exposure of such hazards. Employees of hazardous waste generators, and treatment and/or disposal facilities, engaged in interstate commerce thus are clearly entitled to the Act’s protection. It should be noted that standards issued under the Act can directly impact some phases of hazardous waste management. For example, the OSHA-enforced asbestos regulation requires that certain wastes be packaged for disposal. State Control Statutes . At least twenty-five jurisdictions have enacted legislation or published regulations which control hazardous waste management activities to some degree. The most effective of these regulatory controls are currently placed on low level radioactive wastes, the Atomic Energy Commission having contracted with a growing number of States for low level radioactive waste disposal. Non-radioactive hazardous wastes, however, are essentially unregulated in practice, for none of the twenty-five jurisdictions has fully implemented its control legislation. The major reason for this failure is the negative approach-- broadly-worded blanket prohibitions--utilized by virtually all of these States. Legislative strategies which rely on blanket prohibitions rather than comprehensive management controls are difficult or impossible to administer In any meaningful, systematic fashion. In addition, many of these States enact control statutes without providing for acceptable treatment or disposal facilities. A recent survey 62 of sixteen of the twenty—five “control” States reveals for example, that less than half of them have treatment/disposal facilities located within their bounda- ries (see Figure 3.1). By failing to specify acceptable alternatives to prohibited activities, such States encourage hazardous waste generators to ignore the law altogether or to select and employ divergent disposal alternatives unknown to the State control authorities which may be more environmentally harmful than the prohibited activity. 26 ------- Figure 3.1 Alabama California Colorado Illinois Kansas Maine Michigan Nevada New Jersey New York Oregon South Carolina Texas Vermont Virginia Washington Summary of State Legislation Survey Alabama California Colorado Illinois Kansas Maine Michigan Nevada New Jersey New York Oregon South Carolina Texas Vermont Virginia Washington Disposal Explosives Regulations for Presence of Regulations on Transportation Handling Hazardous Existing Facilities Transportation Processing_Storag DOT Regulations Other(a) Materials Radioactive Hazardous —— — — —— —— Yes —— Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes —— YQB No No No No Yes No No No No —— Yes — — —— Yes Yes —— Yes No Yes Yea Yes Yes Yes Yes —— Yes —— Yes Yea —— —— Yes —- Yes No No Yes Yes —— —— No Yes Yes No Yea Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —— 0ev Ye S Yes Yes Yea Yes Yes Yes —— Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No Yea No No Yes Yes —— Yes 0ev — —— —— —— Yes Yes —— Yes Yes Yes Yea Yes Yes Yes —- 0ev No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes — 0ev No 0ev Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes (a) Includeu Hauling Permit., Vehicle Registration., Material Registrations, Hills of Lading, Placard Attachaset, and Vehicle Standards. (b) Include. Pesticide., Toxic Substances, and other Chemical.. Solid Waste R4n rf1,,u M P . ,vl. .1 Pesticides Disposal Regulations Licensing of Disposal Sites Regulations on Regulations on Disposal Transportation Processing Storage Disposal Transportation Processing Storage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No Dev Yes Yes Yes Yes Yea Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye Yea Yes Yes Dev No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yea Yes Yes Yes Yes Yea Yes Yes Yea Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yea Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yea Yes No No Yea No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No —— Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Ye8 No No No Yes No No No Source; EPA Contract No. 68—01—0762 ------- Sun ary : With the exception of radioactive waste disposal, which appears to be the subject of adequate Federal and State regulation, land-based hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal activities are essen- tially unregulated by Federal and State laws. Because this legislative gap allows uncontrolled use of the land for hazardous waste disposal, there has been little incentive for the use of proper hazardous waste treatment and disposal technology to date. Until nationwide controls are established, the pressure on the land as a receptor for hazardous wastes can be expected to increase as the major hazardous waste disposal controls of the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the new Federal ocean dumping statute are tightened. The latter statute’s mandate to the EPA Administrator to consider land-based disposal alternatives when granting ocean dumping permits seems certain to provide opponents of the practice of dumping toxic wastes into the ocean with a new and powerful legal tool. Depending on the courts’ interpretation of this statute, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 could add significantly to the pressure on the land as the last disposal medium for hazardous wastes. The first two of these three statutes are analyzed in the discussion which follows. Precedents for Hazardous Waste Regulation: The Clean Air Act and the Fe dera1 Water Pollution Control Act Both the Clean Air Act 63 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act& 4 include provisions which address the problem of hazardous waste management directly. The former statute authorizes the control of hazardous air pollutants and the latter controls the discharge of hazardous pollutants into the Nation’s waters. Control Philosophy . The Clean Air Act best exemplifies a control strategy designed to protect the public health and welfare by placing the burden of standards compliance on the air polluter. As with most environmental control statutes, the costs of compliance are interna- lized by the polluter and ultimately passed on to the consumer, indirectly in the form of tax benefits to the polluting Industries, 65 or directly in the form of higher prices for goods and services. In the past, Clean Air Act standards have been based almost exclusively on health effects. As a result of adverse court decisions on ambient air quality standards, however, EPA has expanded its efforts to con- sider, in addition to health and welfare factors (1) beneficIal and adverse environmental effects, (2) social, economic, and other perti- nent factors, and (3) be a 1onale for selecting the standard from the available options.00 & ’ 0 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 generally exemplify a control strategy based on factors in addition to human health and welfare. Typical of the FWPCA’s new regulatory 28 ------- provisions are those keyed to “best practicable” control technology and “best available technology economically achievable,” determina- tions which are to be made by EPA from studies of the age, size and unit processes of the point sources involved and the cost of apply- ing effluent controls. The Clean Mr Act . Sec. 112 of the Clean Air Act authorizes the Administrator of EPA to set standards for hazardous air pollutants at any level “which in his judgment provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health.”b9 Hazardous air pollutants are defined as those which “may cause, or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible, illness” (Sec. 112(a)(l)). Asbestos, beryllium and mercury are three hazardous pollutants for which emission limits under Sec. 112 have been promulgated. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act . The FWPCA contains a number of provisions which impact directly on hazardous pollutant-bearing wastes. Section 502(13) defines “toxic pollutant” as “those pollutants. . . which. . . after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism. . . will cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physio- logical malfunctions. . . or physical deformations on such organisms or their offspring.” Section 115 directs EPA to locate and contract for “the removal and appropriate disposal of (in-place toxic pollutant) materials from critical port and harbor areas.” The potential for increased pressure for land disposal of such toxic pollutants is evident. Title III of the FWPCA contains four provisions authorizing control over toxic pollutants discharged into water from point sources . The importance of the FWPCA’s distinction between point and nonpoint sources cannot be overemphasized from a hazardous waste management viewpoint, for discharges from point sources only are subject to the Act’s regulatory controls.* Because the Act defines “point source” as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance,” and offers as examples such things as pipes, ditches, tunnels, etc., 70 Congress seems not to have intended that land disposal facilities are to be Includ Twithin the point source definition. In fact the opposite appears to be true, for Sec. 304(e) of the Act requires EPA to publish nonregulatory “processes, procedures, and methods to control pollution resulting from. . the disposal of pollutants in wells or In subsurface e c yations ” 1 (emphasis supplied). *Sec. 301(a) established FWPCA’s broad prohibitions against the “discharge of any pollutant.” Sec. 502(12) defines “discharge of pollutants” as “...any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source... ” (emphasis supplied). 2g ------- Since the types of pollutant discharges normally associated with improperly managed hazardous waste disposal facilities are runoff into navigable waters and migration Into ground water supplies, it seems safe to conclude that, unless a disposal facility discharges toxic pollutants into a waterway through a “discernible, discrete conveyance” such as an outfall pipe, it will be exempt from the Act’s proscriptions. Hazardous waste treatment facilities, however, should not escape the Act’s reach. Any toxic wastes produced by such facilities and not treated on-site must be stored and/or eventually transported in some manner, and any container or confined means of conveyance for such waste, by definition in Sec. 502(13) of the Act, qualifies as a potential “point source” of water pollution discharge. The first of Title III’s proscriptions against toxic pollutant discharges may be found in Sec. 301(f), which prohibits the “discharge of any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent, or high level radioactive waste into the navigable waters. 1 ’ The other statutory authorities which impact on the disposal of these wastes were discussed above. Sec. 306 is the second reference to hazardous wastes. It requires EPA to publish national standards of performance for new point source categories reflecting “the greatest degree 0 f effluent reduction achievable..., including where practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants.” 72 The Act singles out such new source categories as the organic and inorganic chemicals industries, well known generators of toxic wastes. These standards, which must take into account the cost of standards’ achievement and “any non-water quality environmental impact and energy requirements,”* must be pub- lished not later than January, 1974. Hazardous waste generators and treatment facilities which otherwise qualify as “new” clearly are comprehended in Sec. 306(a)(3), which defines new sources as “any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there Is or may be the discharge of pollutants.” This adds to the general qualification of such facilities as point sources, discussed above. The third FWPCA provision affecting toxic pollutants is Sec. 307 which requires EPA to identify and publish effluent standards for a list of toxic pollutants or combinations of such pollutants. Standards are to be set “at that level which the Administrator determines pro- vides an ample margin of safety,” nd are to take effect not later than one year after promulgatlon. 7 Even though Congress’ standard- setting process mandate to EPA under this section was limited to *Sec. 306(b)(1)(B). The FWPCA’s legislative history, however, makes It clear that individual new sources, rather than EPA, will determine which technologies will be used to achieve Sec. 306(b)’s performance standards. Conference Report No. 92-1465, FWPCA Amendments of 1972, 92nd Congress Sess. (Sept. 28, 1972, at p. 128). 30 ------- consideration of toxicity data alorle,* as previously discussed other factors likely will be considered to produce judicially enforceable standards, given recent air pollution-related court decisions.1 Sec. 311 is designed to protect the navigable waters and adjoining shorelines of the United States and the waters of the contiguous zone from “hazardous substance” discharges. EPA must designate as hazardous substances those elements and compounds “which, when discharged in any quantity,... present an iminent and substantial danger to the public health and substantial danger to the public welfare, including but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches. TM Designed primarily to control spills from vessels and onshore or off- shore facilities, Sec. 311 requires violators to pay a fixed cost for each hazardous substance unit unlawfully discharged, with the President alone authorized to permit certain o these discharges when he has determined them “not to be harmful.” 5 Coastal zone-area hazardous waste generation and treatment facilities thus would clearly be subject to Sec. 311 controls and penalties. * Sec. 307(a)(2) requires the Administrator of EPA to publish proposed toxic effluent standards (or prohibitions) which shall take Into account (1) the toxicity of the pollutant, (2) its persistence, (3) degradability, (4) the usual or potential presence of the affected organism in any waters, (5) the importance of the affected organisms, and (6) the nature and extent of the effect of the toxic pollutant on such organisms...” No other considerations are mentioned in Sec. 307 or its legislative history. tSee e.g., Kennecott Copper v. EPA , U.S. App. D.C. F. 2d_, 3 ERC 1682 (Feb. 8, 1972) (EPA must explain in detail the bas I for sulfur oxide standards promulgated under informal rulemaking); Annaconda Company v. Ruckeishaus , D.C. Colorado, F. Suppi. , 4 ERC 1817 (Dec. 19, 1972) (EPA must hold adjudicatory rfor 1 rulemakThg] hearing before promulgating State sulfur oxide emission standard that applies to a single company); International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus , U.S. App. D.C.,_F. 2d_, 4 ERC 2041 (Feb. 10, 1973) (failure to support auto emission standard with “reasoned presentation” requires EPA to reconsider automakers’showing that technology is not available to achieve 1975 standards). 4Sec. 31l(b)(2)(B)(IV) requires EPA to establish units of measurement based on usual trade practices, with penalties for each unlawful unit discharged ranging from $100 to $1000 per unit. 31 ------- Closing the Circle on Hazardous Wastes The foregoing discussed the many Federal and State statutes which have impact on hazardous waste management activities. The more detailed analyses of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Act illus- trates that, while the toxic effluents of hazardous waste generation and treatment facilities will probably come under control, land-based facili- ties for open storage or disposal of such hazardous wastes remain essentially unregulated. As standards and regulations published under recent environmental legislation begin to close off water as a disposal medium, and as enforcement of air pollution standards takes shape, hazardous waste generators can be expected to turn increasingly to land disposal as a means of solving their hazardous waste problems. The need for regulations for land disposal will become more acute. The concluding part of this section discusses the persons and activities which would be subject to control under a comprehensive hazardous waste regulatory program; reviews in some detail the type of hazardous waste standards considered to be appropriate under such a program; and identifies and evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of three alternative regulatory program enforcement strategies. Persons/Activities Subject to Re9ulatory Controls . In order to fore- stall the type of environmental degradation likely to occur from the uncontrolled use of the land as an ultimate sink for the Nation’s ever—increasing supply of hazardous wastes, the focus of any hazardous waste regulatory program must first be on land disposal activities and those who provide and utilize land disposal services. Persons subject to disposal controls should include all generators of hazard- ous waste who opt for on-site disposal, as well as those persons who receive wastes off-site for disposal. Long-term sealed storage should be considered “disposal” for the enforcement purposes of such regula- tion. The location of disposal sites should be permanently recorded in the appropriate office of legal jurisdiction. The next priority activity for regulation is treatment , since utilization of the appropriate hazardous waste treatment processes can often detoxify such wastes and render them safe for unregulated disposal in sanitary landfill facilities or at a minimum reduce the need for long-term “perpetual care” and environmental risks Inherent therein. EPA has proposed a regulatory program for hazardous waste streams which Incorporates treatment In order to lessen the demand on land disposal alternatives. All persons who treat the same hazardous wastes, either on-site (generators) or off-site (by contract service organizations), should be subject to the same treatment standards. Processes for recovery of recyclable constituents from hazardous wastes should be controlled adequately by treatment regulations, for the technologies employed are often the same. 32 ------- Other hazardous waste management activities which should be subjected to improved controls are hazardous waste transport and handling . As indicated earlier, the Department of Transporation idiiiTñisters a number of Federal statutes designed to control the transportation of hazardous materials in interstate commerce. These statutes should be amended by DOT where necessary to ensure that hazardous wastes are properly marked, containerized and transported (to authorized disposal sites). The packaging and labeling provisions of all other Federal statutes which have a potential impact on hazardous wastes should be reviewed by EPA and amended where necessary to ensure their applicability to such wastes. It should be noted that control of toxic materials before they become toxic wastes could greatly reduce the size of the overall hazardous waste management problem. The proposed Toxic Substances Control Act, now pending before Congress, would provide for regulatory controls over toxic substances before they become wastes. The pro- posed legislation authorizes (1) testing of chemical substances to determine their effects on health or the environment, and (2) restrictions on use or distribution of such chemicals when warranted. Such restrictions may include labeling of toxic substances as to appropriate use, distribution, handling, or disposal, and limitations on particular uses, including a total ban. This “front end” approach to toxic substances problems should dovetail neatly with a hazardous waste regulatory program. Types of Hazardous Waste Standards . The foundation of any regulatory program, of course, is the body of standards the program establishes and enforces. The Clean Mr Act and FWPCA regulatory programs pro- gressed from ambient air and water quality standards to specific pollutant emission and discharge standards, as practical experience with each atute’s enforcement revealed the necessity for such an evolution. ° Because of the nature of the discharges associated with improperly managed hazardous waste, two types of standards are likely to be necessary in order to satT actorily regulate hazardous waste treat- inent and disposal: Type of Standard Treatment Disposal 1. Performance Restrictions on quantity Restrictions on per- and quality of waste dis- forinance of disposal charged from the treatment site--e.g., amount, process. quality of leachate allowed. 2. Process Specification of treatment Minimum site design procedures or process con- and operating conditions- ditions to be followed-- e.g., hydraulic connec- e.g., incineration of tions are not allowed. certain wastes. 33 ------- The performance standards correspond directly to the emission/discharge standards of the Clean Air Act and the FWPCA and would be designed to prevent hazardous pollutant discharges from treatment and disposal facilities from reaching air and surface waters In excess of acceptable air and water limits. A major advantage of this type of standard is the ability to use health and environmental effects data and criteria already developed by EPA’s Office of Air and Water Programs and Office of Research and Monitoring. Process standards would be designed to ensure that certain treatment technologies and minimum design and operating conditions are employed. These standards assume double importance because of the uncertainty surrounding the FWPCA’s standard-setting authority regarding discharges into ambient groundwaters,* and the Act’s clear lack of authority to regulate diffuse discharges from nonpoint sources such as land disposal sites. Process (design and operating) standards, therefore, which are intended to establish controls at the hazardous waste sources, would be an important part of any regulatory program. Strategies for Hazardous Waste Regulation . Hazardous wastes can be regulated by three distinct control stategies: (1) Federal only, (2) State only, and (3) Federal-State partnership. Each of these alternatives is examined below. 1. Federal only . This type of control strategy requires the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government (Federal preemption) over all management activities for hazardous waste. The most obvious advantages include national uniformity of standards; elimination of State pollution havens for industries controlling a significant portion of such a State’s economy; and uniform administration and enforcement. The major disadvantages of this control strategy are the difficulty in proving conclusively that the hazards of human health and the environment justify total Federal involvement; the prohibitive costs and adminis- trative burdens involved in maintaining a nationwide Federal monitoring and enforcement program; and the total disincentive for State involvement in what is essentially a State problem. The only comparable Federal pro- gram is that involving the exclusive disposal of high level radioactive wastes by the Atomic Energy Coninission. *Although the broad definition given to “navigable waters” in Sec. 502(7) of FWPCA arguably includes groundwaters, the restriction of the Act’s regulatory provisions to discharges of pollutants from point sources virtually eliminates the most coninon source of groundwater pollution, I.e., runoff or leachate from nonpoint sources. See text accompanying footnote on p. 29. 34 ------- 2. State only . Under this control strategy, the Federal Government would establish “reconiiiended guidelines” for hazardous waste treatment and disposal which the States could adopt as a minimum, modify in either direction (more or less stringent) in response to local needs and pressure groups, or ignore altogether. These Federal guide- lines could be used to recommend what would otherwise be process and performance standards under a Federal regulatory program, as well as the minimum efforts the Federal Government believes are necessary to administer and enforce an effective State control program. States could finance activities themselves; alternatively the Federal Government could offer technical and financial support to assist States in program develop- ment and enforcement. The major advantage of this approach is in its low level of Federal involvement and correspondingly low Federal budget requirements. Another advantage includes enhanced ability to tailor solutions to particular problems which may be essentially local in character. The disadvantages of the State-only approach to hazardous waste control include its total dependence on the States for voluntary guide- lines’ adoption and enforcement; nonavailability of Federal “back-up” enforcement authority; its potential for extreme nonuniformity between the individual States adopting control programs; and the much greater period of time needed to enact and fully implement such a control system nationwide. 3. Federal-State Partnership . This is the control strategy which had been adopted by the Nation’s major environmental pollution control statutes. The Federal Government would establish minimum Federal hazardous waste treatment and disposal standards; all States would be required to adopt these as minimum State standards within a specified time period. The States would bear the responsibility for establishing and administering EPA-approved State control programs. Functions could include operating a State-wide hazardous waste facility permit program; maintaining an inspection and monitoring force; enforcing statutory sanctions against violators; and filing program progress reports with EPA. As in the Federal air and water pollution control programs, States with approved implementation programs would be eligible for Federal financial assistance. For those States which fail to submit approved programs, or which do not enforce the Federal-State standards, back-up Federal enforcement powers could be exercised to ensure uniform compliance, or Federal program grant funds could be withheld. Provision could also be made for a Federally-administered control and enforcement program for certain hazardous wastes determined to pose extremely severe hazards, an approach already utilized by the AEC for high level radioactive wastes. 35 ------- The major advantage of this control strategy sterns from the well- established legislative precedents discussed earlier; land pollution control regulations employing this strategy would be capable of being fully integrated with existing controls over air and water pollution. Other advantages include utilizing the Federal Government’s superior resources to set standards and design programs, while retaining the concept of State responsibility for what are traditionally recognized as State problems; minimal Federal involvement once the States’ implementation programs are fully underway; uniform minimum national hazardous waste standards, with States retaining the power to set more stringent standards if local conditions so dictate; and reasonable assurance that the standards will be enforced ultimately by someone. The disadvantages of the combined Federal-State hazardous waste control strategy involve its potential for delay in final implementation, since States can be expected to demonstrate varying degrees of readiness and interest In gearing up State machinery to run their respective control programs. The major drawback to this approach, however, Involves its potential for large expenditures of Federal manpower and funds, should the States choose to sit back and “let the Feds do it”; even worse is the possibility that Federal standards for hazardous waste control will be completely unenforced in laggard States simply because of the lack of adequate funds to exercise the ‘reserve” powers mentioned above. This problem seems capable of resolution, however, If adequate incentives for State action are made available (Federal grants or technical assistance) and If significant disincentives are applied (withholding air and water program grant funds; characterizing the State as “irresponsible”, etc.). Suninary The earlier parts of this section descrIbed the gap in Federal and State hazardous waste management legislation, a gap which If not filled soon by Congress’ adoption of a comprehensive hazardous waste control strategy could well result In irreparable damage to the health and environment of the Nation’s citizens. The most viable hazardous waste control strategy would consist of a Federal-State regulatory partnership, in which the Federal Government would bear the responsibility for setting process and performance standards applicable to all hazardous waste treatment and disposal activities, while qualified State govern- ments would be responsible for administering federally-approved control programs and enforcing the Federal standards. 36 ------- Section 4 ISSUES OF IMPLEMENTATION The previous section has spelled out the need for a regulatory program. A hazardous waste regulatory program does not directly create a national disposal site system” as envisioned in Section 212 of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. However, such a system would be ineffective unless its use is mandated via regulations. Even with total governmental subsidy of its construction and operation, such a system would not be assured of receiving all hazardous wastes. There- fore, a regulatory program is needed in any case. EPA believes that private industry will respond to a regulatory program, but there are a number of questions relating to that response. Furthermore, several options are available to the Government to modify a purely private sector system to circumvent these questions if need be. In this section, estimates are developed of a hazardous waste management system required to implement a hazardous waste regulatory program, the cost of such a system, and possible variations of the system. Issues related to cost distribution, private sector response and the role of Government are discussed thereafter. Hazardous Waste Mana gement System A hazardous waste management program should result in creation of a system” with certain characteristics: o Adequate treatment and disposal capacity nationwide, o Lowest cost to society consistent with public health and environmental protection, o Equitable and efficient distribution of cost to those responsible for waste generation, and o Conservation of natural resources achieved by recovery and recycling of wastes instead of their destruction. This system should combine on-site (point of generation) treatment of some wastes, off-site (central facility) treatment for hazard elimination and recovery, and secure land disposal of residues which remain hazardous after treatment. Scenario . Estimates of total required treatment and disposal capacity, and the mix of on-site and off-site capacity, are keyed to hazardous waste source quantities, types, and geographical distribution; the degree of regulation and enforcement; and the timing of regulatory and enforcement implementation. The hazardous waste management scenario 37 ------- developed below represents, in EPA ’s judgement, a system with the aforementioned characteristics. It is Dased n he best available source data and technology assessments 0, ‘ ‘ 0 ,discussions with major waste generators and disposal firms, and consideration of the following criteria: earth sciences (geology, hydrology, soils, climatology), transportation economics and risk, ecology, human environment, demography, resources utilization, and public acceptance. The scenario assumes complete regulation, treatment and disposal of all non—radioactive hazardous wastes (as defined in Appendix B), and anticipates issuance of regulations and vigorous enforcement of them at the earliest practicable time period. The scenario which follows and the cost estimates derived from the scenario should be viewed with caution. Given any reasonable degree of dependence on private market choices on the part of waste generators and waste treatment/disposal firms, the actual implementation of a hazardous waste management program in the United States is not likely to follow predictable, orderly lines. Numerous interactive factors are likely to influence the shape and the cost of the system as It evolves--including such factors as the impact of air and water effluent regulations on waste stream volume and composition, the impact of uneven response to regulatory pressures from region to region, changes in technology, shifting locational patterns, and the like. What follows, therefore, should be considered as one of many possible permutations of the system. Nonetheless, the scenario does represent EPA’s current best judgement of a reasonable, environmentally adequate hazardous waste management system. As noted previously, approximately 10 million tons (9 million metric tons) of non-radioactive hazardous wastes are generated per year. Of these, about 60 percent by weight are organics, 40 percent are inorganics; about 90 percent of wastes are aqueous in form. Economic analyses indicate that on-site treatment is generally justified only for dilute aqueous toxic metal wastes and only where the generation rate is high (see Appendix E). Based on analyses of source data, it is estimated that about 15 percent of the total wastes (1.5 million tons or 1.36 million metric tons) are in the dilute aqueous toxic metal category and would be pre-treated by generators on—site. Since on—site facilities are anticipated to be small in scale compared to off-site facilities, about 50 on-site facilities each capable of handling approximately 30,000 tons (27,000 metric tons) per year would be economically justified. About one-third (0.5 millIon tons or 0.45 million metric tons) of pre-treated wastes would require further processing at off-site facilities. In this postulated scenario, therefore, most of the wastes (8.5 mIllion tons or 7.7 million metric tons plus pre-treatment residues) would be transported to off-site facilities for treatment/ 38 ------- disposal. The size and location of treatment plants is likely to correspond to patterns of waste generation: larger facilities would be located in major industrial regions, smaller facilities elsewhere. Background studies have identified the location of industrial waste production centers and designs and unit costs of small, medium and large size processing facilities (see Appendix F). A reasonable prediction is that five large facilities,each capable of handling approximately 1.3 million tons (1.2 million metric tons) per year,would be created to serve five major industrial regions in the U.S. and 15 medium size treatment plants each processing approxi- mately 160,000 tons (145,000 metric tons) would be built elsewhere to provide reasonable access from other waste generation points. Such an array of treatment plants, taken in conjunction with existing privately owned facilities, is capable of processing all the non-radioactive hazardous waste generated in the U.S. at present with a 25 percent margin for future growth in waste volume. Processing reduces aqueous waste volume by about 50 percent and usually results in the elimination of hazard (detoxification, neutra- lization, decontamination, etc.). If the appropriate treatment processes are used, most processing residues will be harmless and disposal in ordinary municipal landfills will be possible. A small portion (5 percent--225,000 tons or 204,000 metric tons) of residues containing toxic metals would require disposal in special, secure landfills. Under the assumption that maximum treatment for hazard elimination and volume reduction of extremely hazardous waste is carried out, no more than five (and possibly fewer) large scale secure landfills would be required. Facilities would transport their toxic metal residues to such land disposal sites rather than operating secure landfills of their own given the scarcity of naturally secure sites, the difficulty in gaining public acceptance of such sites, the additional expense of artificially securing sites, and the relatively low costs of long-haul transport. Costs . Based on the above scenario, cost estimates have been prepared for on- and off—site treatment facilities, secure disposal, and waste transportation. The actual values used for estimation purposes are shown in Table 4.1; more detail is presented in Appendix F. Estimates are based on comprehensive engineering cost studies. Each regional processing facility was assumed to provide a complete range of treat- ment processes capable of handling all types of hazardous wastes, and therefore, each is much more costly than existing private facilities which are more specialized. Based on these estimates, the development of this version of a national hazardous waste management system would require investments in new facilities of approximately $940 million. Average annual 39 ------- Table 4.1 Cost Aspects of EPA Scenario of a National Hazardous Waste Management System (Million $) * Includes capital recovery in 10 years and interest at 7 percent. t Capital required based on new rail rolling stock. Transport required for 9.0 million tons (8.25 million metric tons) of waste; average distance from generator to treatment facility is 150 miles. Approximately $25 million has already been invested in current private sector off-site treatment facilities. Cost per unit Total Capital Annual Number Capital Needed 1.4 Operating* Needed 51 Required 71 .73 On-site facilities Off-site Treatment (large) Treatment (medium) Secure Disposal Transport 86.0 24.1 2.5 63. Ot 57.1 12.5 1.2 $11/Ton 5 15 5 Total Annual Cost * 37 286 188 6 99 616 430 362 13 63 9 39** 40 ------- operating expenditures (including capital recovery, operating costs, and interest) of about $620 million would be required to sustain the program. In addition, administrative expenses of about $20 million annually for Federal and State regulatory programs would be necessary. For this scenario, system costs fall into five broad categories: (1) on—site treatment (about 6 percent of total costs on an annualized basis), (2) transportation of wastes to off-site treatment facilities (16 percent), (3) off-site treatment (74 percent), (4) secure disposal (1 percent), and (5) program administration (3 percent). The largest element of cost is off-site treatment. Treatment followed by land disposal of residues is not necessarily more expensive than direct disposal of untreated wastes in secure landfills (see below). Treatment before disposal would buy greater long-range protection of public health and the environment. Variations . While the above scenario is reasonable and would satisfy requirements for environmentally adequate hazardous waste management, It is not presented as a hard-and—fast specification of what a nationa1 system should look like. There is no single 9 optimum M system given uncertainties of hazardous waste generator response to air, water and hazardous waste regulations, of future directions In production and waste processing technology, of timing and level of enforcement, of public reaction to site selection decisions, etc. However, some con nents can be made about variations in the system scenario presented above. It is unlikely that more large scale and fewer medium scale processing facilities would be constructed unless specifically mandated. The higher initial capital investment of large scale processing facilities is warranted only where large market potential exists, I.e., In the major industrial regions. Furthermore, at present, addition of only two more large scale facilities (over the five in the scenario) would provide sufficient capacity to treat all non-radioactive hazardous wastes. Stated another way, two more large scale facilities could handle all the wastes for which 15 medium sized facilities were postulated in the scenario. Resulting increased costs of transportation from generators to these larger treatment facilities (because average transport distances would increase) would offset cost reductions due to better economies of scale (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2). The net result would be a significant loss in convenience and Increase in transportation risks for a fairly insignif- icant saving in capital cost and a higher operating cost. Construction of a larger uumber of medium or small scale plants (and consequently fewer large scale plants) tends to drive capital costs up sharply (see Figure 4.1). Total system operating costs also rise because transportation cost savings are not sufficient to offset lost economies of scale (see Figure 4.2). TransportatIon risk would 41 ------- Figure 4.1 2,800 FIxed Capital Cost Sensitivity of a National Hazardous Waste Management System to Fluctuations In Nunter and Size of Facilities 273S Legend: 2,400 L — Large facility, processing 1,330,000 tons (1,210,000 metric tons) per year 14 - Medium facility, processing 162,000 tons (147,000 metric tons) per year 20M + 176S S Small facility, processing 33,300 tons (30,200 metric tons) per year — 2,000 4014 + 76S 1,600 56M 1L+48M 4- 21+4014 i nn 31+3214 41+2414 5L+15M — 71 6L+714 — • 800 — — 4 ., U, 0 C-) 400 800 851 939 1070 1176 1234 1392 1497 796 246 2665 ! ncreasingjy _ Smaller Facilities Note: Each configuration includes $71 million for on-site facilities; $13 million for secure land disposal; and from $41 to $114 million for new transportation equipment (based on average distance and estimated turn-around time). ------- FIgure 4.2 Operating Cost Sensitivity of National Hazardous Waste Management System to Fluctuations in Nunler and Size of Facilities Legend: L Large facility, processing I ,330,000 tons (1 ,210,000 metric tons) per year M = Medium facility, processing 162,000 tons (147,000 metric tons) per year S = Small facility, processing 33,300 tons (30,200 metric tons) per year 40t1 + 76 (932) 51 + 15M (616) 99 517 572 & disposal 11 21 + 40M 31 + 32M (714) (671) — 56 61 — 16 658 + 48M (751) 50 701 56M (78$) 745 893 2 73S (1334) 20M + 176S (1142) 1103 296 1,400 1,200 1 ,000 800 600 400 200 Transportation I- w ‘V I .- 0 C 0 C r In 0 7L (627) 4L + 24M (639) 67 6L + 7M (603) 474 184 443 Increasingly Smaller Facilities Note: Each configuration includes $37 million In annual costs for on—site facilities and $6 million for secure land disposal. ------- decline due to shorter haul distances, but inspection and enforcement costs would increase due to the larger number of plants requiring surveillance. As discussed below, however, a private sector system may consist of more smaller plants and thus may result in higher total costs. There could be fewer disposal sites than assumed in the scenario if land availability/suitability and public acceptance problems arise. This outcome is likely if, for instance, only arid lands with no hydrologic connection to surface and ground waters are deemed acceptable as disposal sites, i.e., if disposal siting standards are extremely strict. Transportation costs would increase somewhat, but not linearly with distance. For example, rail transport costs are estimated at $35 per ton for 1,000 miles and $49 per ton for 2,000 miles distance. Transport risks would be greater, but disposal risks and enforcement costs would decline because fewer sites would be easier to monitor. On the other hand, as a policy decision, the Government could allow significantly more disposal relative to processing. Many more, or at least much larger, disposal sites would be required in this case since, for Instance, approximately a forty-fold Increase in tonnage going to secure disposal sites would result if processing were by-passed althgether. The total system capital cost would be reduced since treat- ment represents a large capital expense (see Table 4.2). If disposal siting standards were very strict such that arid lands in the western States were the only acceptable sites, transportation costs would increase substantially because of the large increase in tonftage transported over longer distances. In fact, in this case, annual operating costs for this “disposal only” option exceed annual costs for the treatment! disposal system scenario discussed above. Aside from economic considerations, what is more important in EPA’s judgement is that the “disposal only” option could significantly increase public health and environmental risk, perhaps to an unacceptable level, given the long-term hazard of many toxic substances, particularly if such substances are not converted to relatively insoluble forms prior to disposal. Moreover, transport risks would undoubtedly Increase. Cost Distribution to Users Given a hazardous waste regulatory program, and the need for a hazardous waste management system to implement such a program, the fundamental issue is who should pay for creation and operation of the system. The two basic options are: • Hazardous waste generators pay, or • Society pays. 44 ------- Table 4.2 Comparative Costs of Regional Hazardous Waste Treatment vs. Disposal Only Regional Disp sal Treatment* Only (A) TREATMENT Hazardous waste treatment on-site, million tons 1.0 0 Hazardous waste treatment off-site, million tons 9.0 0 Treatment cost, fixed capital $863 million $ 0 Treatment cost, annual operating $511 million/yi $ 0 /yr. (B) DISPOSAL Secured land disposal, million tons .225 10.0 Disposal cost, fixed capital $13 million $386 million Disposal cost, annual operating $6 million/yr $257 million/yr (C) TRANSPORTATION Transportation cost, fixed capital $63 million $252 million Transportation cost, annual freight charges $99 mi11ion/y $490 million/yr Total fixed capital $939 million $638 million Total annual costs $616 million/yi $747 million/yr * As described on p. 39. j Cost data for this option are based on two ‘arge secure land disposal sites-- both in the western States. 10 x 10 tons per year of untreated hazardous waste is shipped directly to these sites. The average distance between waste generators and secure land disposal sites is 2,000 miles. Note: Secure land disposal costs are based on preliminary OSWMP estimates. The indicated transportation costs represent a minimum, because bulk shipment via railroad in 10,000 gal. tank cars was assumed for all cases. 45 ------- This issue hinges on the principle of equity of cost distribution, and on an assessment of ability to pay. Equity of Cost Distribution . The usual aim in environmental legislation is to cause costs to be internalized . Costs are internalized when the generator pays the full costs of actions for which he is responsible. In turn, he can either absorb the costs (“taxing’ t his stockholders) or pass on the costs in the price of his products/services (“taxing” those who benefit from the use of his products/services). Only those who have a direct relationship to the generator are required to pay for the generator’s actions. A publicly funded incentive distributes the costs inequitably by assigning costs incurred by a special group to the population at large--not in proportion to the use of waste-related products by that public but in proportion to income levels. The regulatory approach internalizes the costs of hazardous waste management. It forces generators to pay for such management while it ensures that the practices are environmentally acceptable. The only portion of the program’s cost that must be borne by the public as a whole is the small portion devoted to the actual preparation of the regulations and their enforcement, and the management of wastes generated by the Federal Government. The regulatory strategy, therefore, results in equitable cost distribution. Only those institutions and individuals who benefit directly from the activities of hazardous materials production and consumption are required to bear the costs of waste disposal, and the costs borne are directly proportional to the amount and type of wastes generated. Most hazardous wastes are generated by Industry and the Federal Government rather than municipalities. The strategy adopted for dealing with air and water pollution from industrial sources has been the regulatory strategy. Thus, this approach is consistent with the total thrust of environmental control efforts. A subsidy strategy to industry would represent a new departure. It could be argued that if some sector of the economy is unable to bear the costs of a regulatory program by nature of Its institu- tional situation, fiscal support of that sector may be justified to enable it to meet the regulatory requirements without serious harm to the economy or interruption of vital services. However, generators of most hazardous wastes are either private, profit-making industrial organizations or governmental entities. Private corporations are capable of accepting the additional costs of environmental control that may be imposed by a hazardous waste regulatory program. They have the option of passing on such costs to their customers or absorbing the costs by reducing the return On investment to their owners. Government agencies have the usual capabilities available to such entities to seek budgetary support 46 ------- for legally mandated activities. Neither sector would fall into the ‘ 1 hardship” category if it had to pay the full costs of its waste generation. Analysis of Cost Impacts . No detailed study has yet been performed to determine the cost burden of specific hazardous waste regulations relative to the sales, costs, investment levels, and employment levels of the industrial sectors which would be affected. Rough aggregate calculations have been done for the following sectors: chemicals, chemical products, petroleum refining, rubber production, ordnance, primary metal industries, pulp and paper, and mining. These aggregate calculations indicate that the costs of hazardous waste management would be roughly equivalent to 1 percent of the value of product shipments. Of course, the corresponding percentage for some disaggregate categories may turn out to be much higher. A general principle which recurs throughout this report is that the costs of hazardous waste management should be internalized in the prices of the comodities whose production has generated the hazardous waste. This principle is consistent with the President’s environmental messages. The results of preliminary studies do not indicate that hazardous waste management costs would cause drastic industrial disruption. EPA is giving a high priority to detailed analysis of the costs and cost impacts of hazardous waste management. Benefit-Cost Analysis . Given the cost and price impacts which hazardous waste regulations could impose, careful consideration is being given to benefit—cost analyses. Hazardous waste regulations may be said to be “benefit determined” in the sense that they cover situations In which the benefit to society in the form of a hazard reduction is shown to be large. Thus, the first type of benefit- cost comparison is that involved in placing a hazardous waste on the regulatory list, as a result of demonstrating that some regulatory option is preferable to the status quo. The second, and equally important, type of benefit-cost analysis is the comparison of all the options, each one involving different levels of benefit and cost. One may speak rhetorically about rendering a substance completely harmless, but in fact that is only one option. That option may have to be chosen in cases for which the associated benefits are large In other cases, cost-benefit comparisons may support a different process alternative. To the extent possible, EPA tends to use cost- benefit analyses to explore the full range of technological options for each hazardous waste. Role of the Private Sector As discussed earlier, processing economics appear to favor off—site treatment/disposal in most instances. A private hazardous waste services industry exists which already offers off-site treatment/ disposal services, but currently available off-site capacity is clearly Insufficient to handle the entire tonnage of hazardous waste materials 47 ------- that would ultimately be brought under control. In light of this, it is obvious that off-site capacity must be significantly expanded if environmentally adequate hazardous waste treatment and disposal is to take place. EPA believes that private industry should and will respond to the proposed regulatory program, but there are a number of questions related to the nature of that response: O will adequate capacity be forthcoming? o Can environmentally sound operations be assured? o Can reasonable user charges be assured? - ° Can the private sector provide long-term care of treatment, storage and disposal sites? These questions are taken up in what follows. The general issue of the government’s role is discussed separately. Capacity Creation . The central question is whether or not a regulatory program will result in sufficient investment iA new capacity by the private sector. Basic issues of capacity creation include the availability of investment capital and the willingness to invest capital in view of the risks involved, i.e., the factors influencing investment. Related to the broad question of private investment are other issues dealing with the availability of trained manpower and the availability of suitable land for facility siting. These issues are discussed below. Private Investment Sources . Under a regulatory program capital is likilj to be avaflibli from at least three private sources: hazardous waste service firms, generators, and solid waste management conglomerates. In the initial stages of a regulatory program (e.g., the first year), no major new investments are likely to be required. Existing service firms will respond to new demand by increasing their throughput. Soon, however, demand Is likely to outstrip supply of such services in a climate of vigorous enforcement, and new investments will be required. The ability of present service firms to provide internal capital and to attract outside investments has been limited because of generally poor earning records in the past. This situation results from the absence of regulatory and economic Incentives for generators to utilize their services. Increased regulatory activity, however, should improve the fiscal abilities of these companies over time by increasing their rate of facility utilization and (under conditions 48 ------- of strong demand) by increasing the prices they can command for services. In fact, the rates of utilization and earnings rates of most of these firms have been increasing as industries respond to water pollution control regulation. This will improve the ability of this industry to retain earnings for investment and also its ability to attract outside capital. This source of capital, however, is expect Ito be limited in the early years of a regulatory program. Two other sectors of the economy, however, are expected to become more involved in capacity creation and to attract substantial investment capital to the field. Major generators of hazardous wastes--e.g., the chemicals and metals industries--will have a strong interest in assuring that off—site facilities will be made available for their use because off-site handling will be more economical. These financially strong organizations--some of which already operate treatment/disposal systems for their own use-—may enter the service field by acquisition or other routes or may underwrite the activities of others by provision of long-term contracts or use of other devices. During the past five years large and financially strong private solid waste management ‘ t conglomerates have emerged, offering management services for nonhazardous wastes. These organizations have established strong lines of credit at attractive interest rates. Although most of these firms lack the technical know-how to manage hazardous wastes today, they are likely to acquire know-how and to enter this field under the stimulus of a regulatory program in a logical extension of their current services to industry. Some have already established a position in this field by the acquisition of hazardous waste management subsidiaries. From the above, it is concluded that sources of private capital to build new capacity potentiallyis available. This does not mean, however, that it will be forthcoming. Factors Influencing Investment . Private sector investment in hazardous waste management facilities entails significant risks, and these risks generally increase as the size of the proposed facilities increase. There are uncertainties regarding waste generator response to air, water and hazardous waste regulations; generators may install new production processes which result in fewer wastes or wastes with different characteristics; generators may elect to treat wastes on-site; future breakthroughs in processingtechnology may prematurely obsolete the proposed plant; further environmental standards may impact on the proposed plant; economic forces may eesult in geographical shifts in waste generator plant locations; and there are uncertainties relating to the future activities of competitors. 49 ------- These factors may (I) deter investment of any kind, (2) lead to investment in treatment processes only for wastes generated in high volume or for wastes which are relatively inexpensive to treat, (3) lead to investment in smaller, less risky facilities which are more expensive to operate on a unit cost basis, or (4) lead to processing plant siting only in locations where major industrial waste sources are assured. In view of these uncertainties, the degree and timing of private capital investment in new capacity will depend heavily on the quantity of waste regulated and the level and timing of enforcement. Also, the ultimate private sector network which results may include many smaller facilities and therefore represent, in the aggregate, a more expensive system than the scenario depicted. Quantity of Waste Regulated . Regulations which affect a significant tonnage of waste will spur investments more than regulatory activity aimed at a small proportion of the Nation’s hazardous wastes. A regulatory program is most likely to be aimed at the control of specific waste con ounds rather than the waste streams in which the con ounds occur. Justification of regulatory action must be tied to health and environmental effects, which can be established moit conclu- sively by studying the effects associated with specific chemicals. Unlike the regulator, the generator must dispose of and the service firm must manage waste streams which may contain a number of hazardous substances in mixture. Background studies performed for EPA have provided useful data on the composition of waste streams. These data indicate that regulatory control of a limited number of the most hazardous substances could re- suit in the treatment/disposal of a substantial proportion of the total waste stream. Several hazardous substances are usually present in chemical and metallurgical hazardous waste discharges, and selective treatment of one or two components of the waste does not appear to be economical. Not all hazardous substances must be regulated imediately, in other words, to cause most wastes to be treated/disposed of under control led conditions. This suggests that regulatory activity can move ahead based on regulation of groups of a few substances at a time--in a manner similar to that adopted to implement the hazardous effluent provisions of air and water mandates--while still ensuring that substantial quantities Of hazardous wastes will be treated. 50 ------- Level and Timing of Enforcement . The key to capacity creation appears to be vigorous enforcement of regulations to force the use of existing capacity by generators. Enforcement of regulations wherever possible will impose costs on generators which may exceed costs of treatment/disposal in new facilities more appropriately located relative to regions of waste generation and will build pressure for rapid investments. Such enforcement will also create incentives for new ventures by ensuring markets for services. The regulatory approach most likely to result in private investment would be one which encouraged incremental additions to capacity by mandating their use as soon as they are created. The approach should be tied to a terminal date by which all regulated wastes must be managed as mandated. The “incremental” approach has the drawback that it initially impacts more heavily on generators which are near existing treat- ment/disposal facilities. Thus, other generators which have no such services available to them have a potential advantage. However, the approach protects the public and the environment as soon as possible wherever it is possible. The above approach is contrasted to a strategy where regulations are announced at one point in time but provide some “reasonable” time for creation of capacity nationwide by generators or their agents before any enforcement takes place. This latter approach would provide fewer incentives for invest- ment in increments of capacity and, by “bunching” capital demand in the “reasonable” waiting period, would also tax the fiscal capacities of industry to respond. If no capacity is created by the deadline period, appeals to delay enforcement would be likely. In sumary, timely investment of private capital to create capacity is anticipated if the regulatory program affects a sub- stantial portion of the Nation’s hazardous wastes and if a vigorous but incremental enforcement approach over time is adopted. These conditions will assure an investor that the facilities he builds will be used, but will avoid excessive demands on available capital at the outset of the program. Government activity in some fiscal role can potentially speed up timing of Investments by private service firms where high Investment risks must be overcome; this is discussed below in more detail. A governmental fiscal role, however, is also subject to a number of constraints. 51 ------- Availability of Manpower . The technology of hazardous waste processing is capital intensive and a significant increase in capacity will require only a limited expansion of labor. Much of the expertise required for the expansion of the hazardous waste management industry already exists in the metallurgical and petrochemical industries and the engineering and construction firms that service these. Similarly, the skills required at local, State, and Federal levels of government are essentially the same as those necessary for the operation of air and water pollution control programs. Capacity creation is not thought to be constrained by a shortage of manpower under any reasonable implementation time-frame, Eor example five years. Availability of Land . Land suitable for the siting and operation of hazardous waste treatment facilities has been identified as part of EPA’s background studies (Appendix F). There is no shortage of appropriate land for treatment facilities in the vicinity or imediately within the Nation’s major hazardous waste generation regions. Land used for disposal by burial should be “secure,” i.e., it should be sealed off from underlying ground waters by Impervious materials. Ideally, such sites should be located in areas where the cumulative precipitation is less than the evapotranspiratfon so that rain cannot accumulate in the “sealed landfills. Such conditions prevail only in the western desert regions. Ideal conditions for disposal sites need not be present if the secure landfill is located near hazardous waste treatment plants where water accumulations can be removed from the disposal site and treated in the plant. Sites with appropriate geological features are available in areas other than the western States. Probably the most important potential problem associated with the land-use aspect of hazardous waste management is that of public resistance to the location of such facilities in their comunities. Although EPA’s public attitudes survey indicates public support of central treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes under controlled conditions, It is not at all certain that the public will express the same attitude when faced with an actual siting decision. While siting problems are anticipated by EPA, there are indications that such constraints can be overcome. The private hazardous waste management industry and AEC contractors have been able to obtain sites in most cases. Treatment and ultimate disposal facilities will represent employment in areas which are of necessity low in population density (if sites are chosen to minimize safety hazard) and in need of industrial development. 52 ------- Environmentally Sound Operation . The private sector, following a profit motive, has incentives to run only as good a hazardous waste management operation as it takes to obtain and keep business and to comply with governmental regulations. Customers may demand more stringent operations to benefit their image or for legal and other reasons, but the private sector hardly can be expected to go all out to maximize the environmental soundness of its operations. It is anticipated, however, that environmentally acceptable operation of private facilities can be assured by appropriate govern- mental and citizen activities. The basic standards and regulations governing hazardous waste management operations must not only be environmentally adequate in themselves but also must provide for effective administrative and legal sanctions against potential offenders. Adoption of appropriate criteria for facility licensing can filter out candidates who do not possess resources sufficient to provide sound facility construction, operation, maintenance and surveillance. Vigorous inspection and enforcement by government, with the attendant threat of licensing suspension or revocation actions, can assure sound operations over time. If the regulatory legislation contains provisions for citizen suits, which is likely given the trend of recent environmental legislation, citizens may bring legal pressure to bear on both the government and private industry to force compliance with existing Federal, State, and local regulations. Reasonable User Char g s . The issue of whether or not a private market situation ifli result in reasonable user charges is dependent upon quite complex interactions involving facility scale and location, risk, competition and transportation rates. As has been discussed, significant economies of scale are possible in the processing of toxic waste. To the extent that such economies are realized and passed on to users of processing facilities, user charges will be “reasonable.° To the extent economies of scale are not achieved or that economies are achieved but savings are absorbed as monopoly profits, charges for the use of processing facilities may be unreasonable. Unfettered operation of the market system may not result in the construction of plants of optimal size initially. Due to a desire to minimize or avoid the risk factors discussed earlier, there may be a tendency to build a number of small, high unit cost plants where one large economical plant would suffice. On the other hand, although small plants may result in higher unit costs of operation, their lower investment requirements may spur competition and reduce opportunities for monopoly profits. Thus, in the scenario described earlier in which large plants with large investment costs and low operating costs 53 ------- predominate, there is potential for monopolistic behavior and, consequently, unreasonably high profits and user charges. The possibility of monopoly are increased by the relatively few companies nationally which have the resources and technical quali- fications to enter this field. Factors other than the risks associated with large investments tend to counter monopolistic behavior, however. Given the relatively low cost of transport in comparison to processing costs and the relative insensitivity of transport charges to increase in haul distances, trade-offs between transportation charges and at-the—plant user charges should result in some overlap among service regions and thus should stimulate competition. A second potential limitation on unreasonably high user charges is the ability Of waste generators to operate their own waste processing plants if projected processing charges appear excessive. Also, the Federal Government could use the processing and disposal of its own wastes, which would be sent to the low bidder on a service contract, as leverage to keep charges reasonable. The revenue and cost information which the Federal Government typically requires as part of the procurement process should itself provide a means of tracking the reasonableness of processing charges on a continuing basis. Although it is difficult to predict how these opposing forces will operate under a free market situation, there is no indication at this time of the need for additional government control (beyond that derived from Federal Government procurement) of hazardous waste service charges. Competition exists now in the general absence of specific hazardous waste regulations, and additional competition is anticipated If new regulatory legislation is passed. Overall system costs, even If many small plants are the rule (see Figure 4.2), should not be so unreasonably high that they merit Federal Interuention. Long Term Care . As indicated earlier, some non-radioactive hazardous wastes cannot be converted to an innocuous form with presently available technology, and some residues from waste/treatment processes may still be hazardous. Such materials require special storage or disposal and must be controlled for long periods of time. In some respects such materials resemble long-lived radioactive wastes; both are toxic and retain essentially forever the potential for public health and environmental insult. There are differences, however: non-radioactive hazardous wastes normally do not generate heat nor do they require radiation shielding. Until recently, essentially all radioactive wastes mere generated by the Federal Government itself as a result of the nuclear weapon, naval propulsion and other programs. This established a precedent for 54 ------- Federal control of radioactive wastes which has carried over to the commercial nuclear power generation and fuel reprocessing industry. No such precedent exists for non-radioactive hazardous wastes from industrial sources. The AEC has established the policy of “engineered storage” for long—lived radioactive wastes because of difficulties in assuring long-term control of these wastes if they are disposed of on or under the land or in the ocean. Designs of such storage facilities will vary with the nature of the wastes involved, but the general principle is to provide long-lived containerized or otherwise separated, easily retrievable storage units. These units generally will require heat removal, radiation shielding, surveillance, and security. The storage/disposal facility requirements for non-radioactive hazardous wastes are anticipated to be less severe than for radioactive wastes since heat removal and shielding are not required, but many of the problems remain. Such facilities should be “secure’ t in the sense that there are no hydrologic connections to surface and ground waters. Long term physical security and surveillance of storage and land disposal sites are required. Also, there should be contingency plans for sealing off the facilities or removing the wastes if hydrologic connections are subsequently established by earthquakes or other phenomena. From an institutional viewpoint, the private sector is not well suited for a role in which longevity is a major factor. Private enterprises may abandon storage and disposal sites due to changes in ownership, better investment opportunities, bankruptcy, or other facthrs. If sites are abandoned, serious questions of legal liability could arise. This issue led the State of Oregon, in its recently adopted hazardous waste disposal program, to require that all privately operated hazardous waste disposal sites must be deeded to the State and that a performance bond be posted as conditions for obtaining a license to operate such sites. Traditionally, waste generators pay a one-time fee for waste disposal. If this concept were carried over to hazardous waste disposal, priiate operators of disposal sites would have to charge fees sufficient to cover expenses of site security and surveillance for a long, but indeterminant, time period. Another option would be to consider hazardous waste disposal as a form of long term storage. Generators would then pay “rent” in perpetuity. Given uncertainties of future market conditions, inflation, etc., neither of these options would have appeal to either the waste generator or disposer, nor would the options preclude legal problems if either party were to file for bankruptcy. 55 ------- There are grounds, therefore, to consider the role of the private sector in hazardous waste storage and disposal as funda- mentally different in character from its role in hazardous waste treatment. EPA believes that, given a regulatory stimulus, the private sector can and will provide necessary facilities for hazardous waste treatment which are operated in an environmentally sound manner with reasonable user charges. However, the issue of long term care of privately owned and operated hazardous waste storage and disposal sites poses significant problems not easily resolved. Some form of Federal or State intervention may be required. These options are discussed in what follows. Role of Government The Implementation strategy described above assigns to government the limited role of promulgating and enforcing regulations. In view of the potential problems discussed above, however, a more extensive government role may be justified under certain circumstances. Options for more extensive government intervention which might be determined to be required include: • Performance bonding • Financial Assistance • Economic Regulation • Use of Government land • Government ownership and operation of facilities These options are discussed below. Performance Bonding . The government could require a performance bond of private firms as a condition of issuing a license/permit for operation of hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities. The bond would help to ensure environmentally sound operation of processing facilities and long term care of disposal sites. This system Is used, for example, by the State of Oregon for all hazardous waste disposal sites and by the State of Kentucky for radioactive waste disposal sites. Performance bonding presents a paradox, however. The bond must be large to be effective, but the larger the bond, the more likely it Is to inhibit Investment. Used unwisely, the performance bond concept could result In no private sector facilities, or in a monopolistic situation with a very limited number 0 f large firms in the business. 56 ------- EPA believes that a performance bonding system, wisely applied, could be beneficial in establishing the fiscal soundness of applicant firms (if fiscally weak, the firm could not be bonded). The bonding system could be adopted within a regulatory program in the licensing procedures with very little, if any, cost to government. Financial Assistance . Some form of fiscal support of capacity creation may be justified if the private sector fails to invest the capital needed for new facilities. If that happens, environmental damage will continue and the potential hazard to public health and safety will increase. Current indications are that private capital will begin to flow under a regulatory approach. It may be argued, however, that capital flow may be slow and uneven on a national basis. In some areas capacity may be created, in others not. Investors might play a wait- and—see game because of potential risks, etc. In such a situation governmental fiscal support might speed up implementation or ensure that all generators have facilities available for use. A governmental fiscal role in capacity creation is not warranted-— on equity and other grounds discussed earlier--unless capital flow is actually very slow and adverse environmental effects are resulting from the Investment rate. If support is warranted, various types of support are likely to have different effects. Indirect Support . A loan guarantee program, probably the most indirect form of fiscal support available, may be more effective in speeding up implementation than direct, massive support of construction. If capital is available (in the absolute sense), but is not obtainable practically because of risks associated with investment in such ventures, a loan guarantee program can induce investments by removing or cushioning the risk. At the same time, such a program would be less vulnerable to budgetary constraints and less likely to lead to a slowdown in private investments than direct support. A loan program, while preferable to direct support on equity grounds, would depend on budget availability and would act to slow down implementation. Other indirect approaches, such as investment incentives based on investment credits or rapid write-off provisions, are comparable to & loan program in that they have a budgetary impact (by affecting government tax income) but would be less likely to slow down imple- mentation because no positive budgetary action would be required to Implement such support. These approaches, much like direct support, would be difficult to justify for a part of the nation only--that is, to support building of capacity only in areas where private action is not resulting in construction. 57 ------- Direct Fiscal Support . Such support might conceivably take the form of construction grants or direct government construction of facilities. Such action can ensure capacity creation. Programs of this type, even in the environmental area, have often failed to meet originally established timing goals because of budgetary constraints and other factors. To the extent that local government involvement is sought in a Federal program, a further potential for delay is introduced. The availability of public funding also has a stifling effect on private initiative. It is economically unwise to invest private money if public funds are available. This approach, while it can guarantee that ultimately capacity will be built, does not promise to be effective in speeding up the implementation rate. Where the objective is to provide capacities in regions where investments are lagging, direct fiscal support is extremely difficult to justify for only one area to the extiusion of others. The advisability of government construction support may also be viewed In the conteRt of government couipetltion with private industry. A fledgling service industry exists. These firms uld object to the entrance of the government into the field as a competitor (direct ov rnment construction) or government action to set up colTpetltlon (grant programs). To the extent that private resources have already been coninitted to this field, grelt care wouTd have to be exercised to avoid driving existing firms out of the market with the resultant economic loss to the Nation. It may be necessary on equity grounds to compensate existing companies for their investments--by outright purchase or post-factum grant support. Determining the value of these companies 1 investments may be difficult in the face of probably increasing demand for their services. Economic Regulation . The Congress could mandate a hazardous waste management system patterned after the public utility concept. In this type of system, government could set up franchises with territorial limits and regulate user charge rates. The hazardous waste management field shares many characteristics of eurrently regulated industries In any case. There are public service aspects, relatively few plants are required per region, and these facilities are capital-intensive. Further, there is potential for natural geographic monopolies because barriers to a second entrant In a given region are high. Government control of plant siting, scale and rates could lessen the potential for environmental impacts and provide greater incentive for private sector investment since there would be no threat of 58 ------- competition and consequently less risk of failure. On the other hand, some companies may not enter the field on a utility basis because of potentially lower rate of return on investment. Further, lack of competition could inhibit new technology development. Ec nomic restrictions can be applied directly via a governmental franchise board or commission or indirectly via administrative actions such as licensing and permitting. GoverAment control of franchising shifts the burden of market determination and related business decisions into the public sector which is not inherently better equipped to make such decisions than private industry. Licensing and permitting of treatment/disposal facilities appears to be a better approach for the exercise of economic control since they can be used to influence (rather than dictate) plant locations, sizes and rates. Some form of government control over such facilities Is desirable in any case to ensure their proper operation. Administrative rather than direct regulatory actions would be less costly to government. New legislation would be required to authorize either direct or indirect economic sanctions. Use of Federal/State Land . Although suitable sites for hazardous waste processing facilities are generally available to the private sector, adverse public reaction to such sites may preclude their use. If this occurs, It may be necessary to make public land available to private firms. These lands could be leased or made available free of charge depending on circumstances. As noted earlier, the State of Oregon requires that hazardous waste facilities be located on State-owned land; other States may elect to follow this precedent. There are compelling reasons for the use of public lands for hazardous waste disposal sites. The need for long term care of disposal sites and the potential problems associated with pritate sector ownership of such sites have been discussed previously. Publicly owned disposal sites could be leased to private operating firms, but legal title would remain with the governmental body. Use of Federal or State lands for privately operated hazardous waste processing or disposal sites is one means of reducing the capital cost and risk of private sector investment while reducing environmental risk as well. Conceivably, some form of government Influence over user charges could be a condition of the lease, In order to avoid potential monopolistic b havior on the part of the lessee. The initial cost to government of these measures would be minimal; however, government maintenance of disposal sites may be necessary If the lessee defaults. Government Ownership and Operation of Facilities . This option provides maximum control over the economic and environmental aspects of hazardous waste management. The issues of potential monopolistic 59 ------- behavior (and consequent unreasonably high user charges) and long term care of hazardous waste disposal sites could be circumvented. Environmentally sound construction and operation of processing and disposal facilities could be assured, but would be dependent on public budgets for implementation. Resource recovery could be mandated. Public land suitable for hazardous waste processing and disposal sites exists In the western States but may not be available in the eastern States. If government ownership and operation of facilities is mandated by Congress, the government may have to purchase private lands for this purpose. The potential for adverse public reaction would be present. The government does operate some hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities now, but these are generally limited to handling wastes generated by government agencies. There Is no obvious advantage of government operation of facilities intended to treat and dispose of hazardous wastes originating in the private sector. In fact, under government operation, there could be a tendency for selection of more expensive technology than is actually required and less incentive for efficient, low cost operation. This option represents, of course, the maximum cost to government of those considered here. If use of government owned and operated facilities is mandated, capital and operating costs of processing plants can be recovered through user charges. Some subsidy of disposal operations is likely, however, since security and surveillance of disposal sites is required in perpetuity. Suninary Given a hazardous waste regulatory program, issues of implementation of a non-radioactive hazardous waste management system hinge on the incentives for and inherent problems of private sector response, and the appropriate role of government. Past experience with air and water environmental regulation over industrial processes indicates that the private sector will Invest in pollution control facilities if regu- lations are vigorously enforced. EPA anticipates that similar private sector Investment In hazardous waste processing facilities will be forthcoming If a regulatory program is legislated and enforced. There Is no real need for massive government intervention or Investment In such facilities. The makeup of a hazardous waste processing system fully prescribed by free market forces is difficult to predict, however. The storage and ultimate disposal of hazardous residues presents a significant problem of basically different character since the private sector Is not well suited to a role of long term care of disposal sites. 60 ------- Options for government action to mitigate this problem include (1) making new or existing Federal- and State-owned and operated disposal sites available to private industry, (2) leasing Federal or State lands to the private sector, subject to a performance bonding system, and (3) private ownership and operation of storage and disposal sites subject to strict Federal or State controls. The optimum control scheme will depend upon the nature of the regulatory program, but Federal or State control of storage and land disposal sites Is clearly implied in any case. On balance, EPA believes that, with the possible exception noted above, the preferred approach to system implementation is to allow the private sector system to evolve under appropriate regulatory controls, to monitor closely this evolution, and to take remedial governmental action If necessary in the future. 61 ------- Section 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Findings Under the authority of Section 212 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as amended), the Environmental Protection Agency has carried out a study of the hazardous waste management practices of industrial, govern- ment, and other institutions in the United States. The key findings of this study are presented in this section. . ..Current management practices have adverse effects . Hazardous waste management practices in the United States are generally inade- quate. With some exceptions, wastes are disposed of on the land without adequate controls and safeguards. This situation results in actual and potential damage to the environment and endangers public health and safety. . ..Causes are economics and absence of legislative control . The causes of inadequate hazardous waste management are two-fold. First, costs of treating such wastes for hazard elimination and of disposing of them in a controlled manner are high. Second, legislation which mandates adequate treatment and disposal of such wastes is absent or limited in scope. The consequence is that generators of hazardous wastes can use l v-cost but environmentally unacceptable methods of handling these residues. . ..Authorities for radioactive wastes are adequate . Under the authority of The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the management of radioactive wastes is placed under control. While the actual implementation of the act may be improved, the legislative tools for accomplishing such an end exist. . ..Air and water pollution control authorities are adequate . The Clean Air A t of 1970 and The Feder ãrWater Pô1lutiö Control Act of 1972 provide the necessary authorities for the regulation of the emission of hazardous compounds and materials to the air and to surface waters from point sources. . ..Legislative controls over hazardous waste land disposal are inadequate . The legislative authorities available for the control of hazardous waste deposition on land--and the consequent migration of such wastes into the air and water media from land--are not sufficient to result in properly controlled disposal. This legislative gap literally invites the use of land as the ultimate sink for materials removed from air and water. 62 ------- . ..Land protection regulation is needed . In order to close the last available uncontrolled sink for the dumping of hazardous waste materials and thus to safeguard the public and the environment, it is necessary to place legislative control over the disposal of hazardous wastes. In the absence of such control, cost considerations and the competitive posture of most generators of waste will continue to result in dangerous and harmful practices with both short range and long term adverse consequences. • . . The technology for hazardous waste man g,ement generally is adequate . A wide array of treatment and disposal options is available for management of most hazardous wastes. The technology is in use today, but the use is not widespread because of economic barriers in the absence of legislation. Transfer and adaptation of existing technology to hazardous waste management may be necessary in some cases. Treatment technology for some hazardous wastes is not available (e.g., arsenic trioxide, arsenites and arsenates of copper, lead, sodium, zinc, and potassium). Additional research and development is required as the national program evolves. However, safe and controlled storage of such wastes Is possible now until treatment and disposal technology is developed. . ..A private hazardous waste management industry exists . A small service industry has emerged in the last d ade offering waste treatment services to industry and other institutions. This industry is operating below capacity because its services are high in cost relative to other disposal options open to generators. The industry is judged capable of expanding over time to accept most the Nation’s hazardous wastes. . ..Hazardous waste management system costs are significant . Estimates made by EPA indicate that investments of about $940 million and operating costs (including capital recovery) of about $620 million per year will be required to Implement a nationwide hazardous waste management system which combines on-site (point of generation) treatment of some wastes, off-site (central facility) treatment for hazard elimination and recovery, and secure land disposal of residues which remain hazardous after treatment. . ..Theprivate sector appears capable of responding to a regulatory program . Indications are that private capital will be available for the creation of capacity and that generators of waste will be able to bear the costs of management under new and more exacting rules. Private sector response to a demand created by a regulatory program cannot be well defined, however, and the characteristics of the resulting hazardous waste management system cannot be definitely prescribed. Uncertainties inherent In a private sector system include - availability of capital for facility construction and operation In a timely manner for all regions of the Nation, 63 ------- - adequacy of facility locations relative to waste generators such as to minimize environmental hazard and maximize use, - reasonableness of facility use charges in relation to cost of services, - long term care of hazardous waste storage and disposal facilities i.e., that such facilities will be adequately secured for the life of the waste, irrespective of economic pressures on private site operators. . ..Several alternatives for government action are available if such actions are subsequently determined to be required . If capital flow were very slow and adverse environmental effects were resulting from the investment rate, financial assistance is possible In indirect forms such as loans, loan guarantees or investment credits, or direct forms such as construction grants. If facility location or user charge problems arose, the Government could impose a franchise system with territorial limits and user charge rate controls. Long term care of hazardous waste storage and disposal facilities could be assured by mandating use of Federal or State land for such facilities. Reconinendati ons Based on the above, It is reconr ended that... Congress enact National legislation mandatinç safe and environmentally sound hazardous waste management . The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed such legislation to Congress, embodying the conclusions of studies carried out under Section 212 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The proposed Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973 calls for authority to regulate the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. A copy of the proposed Act is presented in Appendix G. The key provisions of the proposed legislation are the following: (1) Authority to designate hazardous wastes by EPA. (2) AuthorIty to regulate treatment/disposal of selected waste categories by the Federal Government at the discretion of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. (3) Authority for the setting of Federal treatment/disposal standards for designated waste categories. (4) State Implementation of the regulatory program subject to Federal standards in most cases. (5) Authority for coordination and conduct of research, surveys, development and public education. EPA believes that no further Government intervention is appropriate at this time. It is EPA’s Intention to carry on its studies and analyses; and EPA may make further recoiiinendatlons based on these continuing analyses. 64 ------- REFERENCES 1. Swift, W. H. Feasibility study for development of a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites. v.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68—06—0762. [ Richiand, Wash.], Battelle Memorial Institute, Mar. 1, 1973. p.”— 63 . (Unpublished data.) 2. U.S. Congress. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Public Law 92—532, 92d Cong., H.R.9727. Washington, Oct. 23, 1972. 12 p. 3. Smith, D. B., and R. P. Brown. Ocean disposal of barge—delivered liquid and solid wastes from U.S. coastal cities. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. p. 10 . 4. Swift, Feasibility study for development of a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, v.2, p.IV—D—1 to IV— D—4 2 * 5. Ottinger, R. S. Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste. v.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68—03—0089. [ Redondo Beach, Calif.], TRW Systems Group, Inc., June 1973. (Unpublished data.) 6. Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc. A study of hazardous waste materials, hazardous effects and disposal methods. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68—03—0032. [ Bethesda, Md.], June 30, 1972. 3 v. 7. Ottinger, Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste, 15 v. 8. Lackey, L. L., S. R. Steward, and T. 0. Jacobs. Public attitudes toward hazardous waste disposal facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68—03—0156. [ Colunibus, Ga.], Human Resources Research Organization, Feb. 1973. (Unpublished data.) 9. Funkhouser, J. T. Alternatives to the management of hazardous wastes at national disposal sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68—01—0556. [ Cambridge, Mass.], Arthur D. Little, Inc., May 1973. 2 v. (Unpublished data.) 1.0. Swift, Feasibility study for development of a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, 2 v. 11. christensen, H. E.., ed. Toxic substances annual list, 1971. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Publication DHEW (HSM) 72—10260. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 512 p. 65 ------- 12. Council on Environmental Quality. Toxic substances Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr. 1971. p. 2 . 13. U.S. Congress. Proposed Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973. 93d Cong., 1st sess., U.S. Senate, S.1086, introduced Mar. 6, 1973, U.S. House of Representatives, H.R.4873, introduced Feb. 27, 1973. [ Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 25 p. 14. Swift, Feasibility study for the development of a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, v.1, p.”— 2 . 15. Environmental quality; the first annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality together with the President’s message to Congress. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, Aug. 1970. p. 107. 16. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 2 . 17. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 2 . 18. Mahier, H. R., and E. H. Cordes. Biological chemistry. New York, Harper & Row, 1966. 872 p. 19. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p.2. 20. Johnson, 0. Pesticides ‘72. Chemical Week , 11O(25):33—48, 53—66, June 21, 1972; 1ll(4):17—46, July 26, 1972. 21. Jansen, L. L. Estimate of container number by size, type, and formulations involved. In Proceedings; National Working Conference on Pesticides, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Nd., June 30—July 1, 1970. p. 27 — 30 . [ Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as PB 197 145.1 22. Jansen, Estimate of container number by size, type, and formulations involved, p.27—28. 23. Ottinger, Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste, v.14, p. 199 . 24. Swift, Fesibility study for development of a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, v.1, p.V—l to V—218. 25. Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc., A study of hazardous waste materials, hazardous effects and disposal methods, v.1, p.A—II—1 to A—II—22. 66 ------- 26. Proceedings; American Hospital Association [ Institute on Hospital Solid Waste Management], Chicago, May 18—20, 1972. v.3. 27. Personal communication. Chemical Biological Warfare Office, U.S. Army Material Command, Washington. 28. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p.8. 29. U.S. Tariff Commission. Synthetic organic chemicals; United States production and sales, [ 1954—19701. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. [ 15 v.} 30. Commissioner Ray stresses positive understanding. Hanford News ( Hanford, Wash.) , p.5, Oct. 27, 1972. 31. Ottinger, Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste, v.2, p. 5 . 32. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p.2. 33. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p.9. 34. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p.9. 35. Committee on Toxicology. Toxicological reports. Washington, National Academy of Sciences—National Research Council, 1971. 2 l9p. 36. Funkhouser, Alternatives to the management of hazardous wastes at national disposal sites, v.1, p. 3 . 5 . 1 . 37. Swift, Feasibility study for a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, v.1, p.IV—ll. 38. Swift, Feasibility study for a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, v.1, p.IV—l2. 39. Swift, Feasibility study for a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, v.1, p.IV—12. 40. Swift, Feasibility study for a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, v.1, p. 1 — 41 — 42 . 41. Ottinger, Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste, v.1, p. 135 — 298 . 42. Funkhouser, Alternatives to the management of hazardous wastes at national disposal sites, v.1, p. 3 . 24 — 3 . 33 . 67 ------- 43. U.s. Congress. Resource Recovery Act of 1970. Public Law 91—512, 91st Cong., H.R.11833. Washington, Oct. 26, 1970. [ 9 p.] 44. U.S. Congress. Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Public Law 703, 83d Cong., H.R.9757. Washington, Aug. 30, 1954. [ 41 p.] 45. United States Code, Title 18, chap.39. Explosives and other dangerous articles. sec.83l—5. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 46. U.S. Congress. [ Federal Railroad Safety and Hazardous Materials Control] Act. Title 111——Hazardous materials control. sec.302. Public Law 91—458, 91st Cong., S.l933. Washington, Oct. 16, 1970. fp. 7 .] (United States Code, Title 46, sec.1761—2.) 47. U.S. Congress. Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Title VT——Safety regulations of civil aeronautics. sec.601. Public Law 85—726, 85th Cong., S.3880. Washington, Aug. 23, 1958. [ p. 45 — 46 .] (United States Code, Title 49, sec.1421.) 48. United States Code, Title 46, chap.7. Carriage of explosives or dangerous substances. sec.170. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 49. U.s. Congress. Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act. sec.l7. Public Law 86—613, 86th Cong., S.1283. Washington, July 12, 1960. [ p.9.] (United States Code, Title 15, sec.l261 et seq.) 50. U.S. Congress. Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972. sec.19. Disposal and transportation. Public Law 92—516, 92d Cong., H.R.l0729. Washington, Oct. 21, 1972. p. 2 3— 24 . 51. Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, sec.19(a), p. 2 3— 24 . 52. U.S. Congress. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Title I——Ocean dumping. sec.lOl. Public Law 92—532, 92d Cong., H.R.9727. Washington, Oct. 23, 1972. p. 2 . 53. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, Title I——Ocean dumping, sec.l02(a), p.3. 54. U.S. Congress. Clean Air Amendments of 1970. Public Law 91—604, 91st Cong., 1I.R.17255. Washington, Dec. 31, 1970. [ 32 p.] (United States Code, Title 42, sec.1857 et seq.) 55. U.S. Congress. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Public Law 92—500, 92d Cong., S.2770. Washington, Oct. 18, 1972. 89 p. 68 ------- 56. U.s. Congress. Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970. sec.3. Public Law 91—601, 91st Cong., S.2162. Washington, Dec. 30, 1970. [ p.1-2.] 57. U.S. Congress. [ Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, Ill. Legislative Jurisdiction by U.S. Adjustment] Act. Public Law 90—339, 90th Cong., S.2452. Washington, June 15, 1968. [ p. 1 .] (United States Code, Title 21, sec.l857 et seq.) 58. U.S. Congress. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Public Law 91—190, 91st Cong., S.1075. Washington, Jan.1, 1970. [ 5 p.] (United States Code, Title 42, sec.4321 et seq.) 59. U.S. Congress. [ Armed Forces Appropriation Authorization, 1970] Act. Public Law 91—121, 91st Cong., S.2546. Washington, Nov. 19, 1969. [ 10 p.]; [ Armed Forces Appropriation Authorization, 1971.] Public Law 91—441, 91st Cong., H.R.17123. Washington, Oct. 7, 1970. [ 10 p.] (United States Code, Title 50, sec.l5ll—l8.) 60. U.S. Congress. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Public Law 92—583, 92d Cong., S.3507. Washington, Oct. 27, 1972. 10 p. 61. U.S. Congress. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. sec.6 (b)(5). Public Law 91—596, 91st Cong., S.2193. Washington, Dec. 29, 1970. [ p. 16 .] 62. Swift, Feasibility study for a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, v.1, p.1X32—1X33. 63. U.S. Congress. Clean Air Amendments of 1970. Public Law 91—604, 91st Cong., H.R.l7255. Washington, Dec. 31, 1970. [ 32 p.] (United States Code, Title 42, sec.1857 et seq.) 64. U.S. Congress. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Public Law 92—500, 92d Cong., S.2770. Washington, Oct. 18, 1972. 89 P. 65. Reitze, A. W., Jr. Tax incentives don’t stop pollution. In Environmental Law. Spring of 1972 ed. Washington, North American International. 66. Kennecott Copper v. EPA, U.S. App. D.C., _F. 2nd , 3 ERC 1682, (Feb. 18, 1972). 67. Anaconda Company v. Ruckelshaus, D.C. Colorado, F. Supp._, 4 ERC 1817, (Dec. 19, 1972). 68. International Harvester Company v. Ruckeishaus, U.S. App. D.C., F. 2nd, 4 ERC 2041, (Feb. 10, 1973). 68 a ------- 69. U.S. Congress. Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970. sec.112 (b)(l)(B). Public Law 91—601, 91st Cong., S.2162. Washington, Dec. 30, 1970. [ p.1 6 .] 70. U.S. Congress. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Title V——General provisions. sec.502(14). Public Law 92—500, 91st Cong., S.2770. Washington, Oct. 18, 1972. p. 72 . 71. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title Ill——Standards and Enforcement, sec..304(c)(2)(D), Public Law 92—500, p. 36 — 37 . 72. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title III, sec.306(a)(1), p. 39—40. 73. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title III, sec.307(a)(4)(6), p .42. 74. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title III, sec.31l(b)(2)(A), p.48. 75. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title III, sec.311(b)(3), p.49. 76. Reitze, Tax incentives don’t stop pollution, Environmental law, chap.3d and 4g. 68 b ------- Appendix A IMPACT OF IMPROPER HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Improper management of hazardous materials or wastes is manifested in numerous ways. Waste discharges into surface waters can decimate aquatic plant and animal life. Contamination of land and/or ground waters can result from improper storage and handling techniques, accidents in transport, or indiscriminate disposal acts. A few of the many cases documented by EPA which illustrate hazardous waste mismanagement are listed categorically in the following compilation. Most of these examples are water pollution related because there ? ave been more monitoring and enforcement actions in this area. Category I - Waste Discharge Hazards (1) Improper Arsenic Disposal . Because of the lack of treatment and recovery facilities, arsenic waste materials generally are disposed of by burial. This practice presents future hazards since the material is not rendered harmless. As a result of arsenic burial 30 years ago on agricultural land in Perham, Minnesota, several people who recently consumed water contaminated by the deposit were hospitalized. The water came from a well that was drilled near this 30 year old deposit of arsenic material. Attempts to correct this contamination problem are now being studied. Proposed methods of approach include (1) excavating the deposit and contaminated soil and diluting it by spreading it on adjacent unused farm land, (2) covering the deposit site with a bituminous or concrete apron to prevent ground water leaching, (3) covering the deposit temporarily and excavating the soil for use as ballast in future highway construction in the area, and (4) excavating the material and placing it in a registered landfill. None of these methods is particularly acceptable since the hazardous property of the material is not permanently eradicated, but they at least protect the public health and safety in the short run. (2) Lead Waste Hazard . Annual production of organic lead waste from manufacturing processes for alkyl lead in the San Francisco Bay area amounts to 50 (45.4 metric tons) tons. This waste was previously disposed of in ponds at one industrial waste disposal site. Attempts to process this waste for recovery resulted in alkyl lead intoxication of plant employees, in one instance, and in another instance not only were plant employees affected, but also employees of firms in the surrounding area were exposed to an airborne alkyl lead vapor hazard. Toll collectors on a bridge along the truck route to the plant became ill from escaping vapors from transport trucks. Currently, the manufacturers which generate organic 69 ------- lead waste are storing this material in holding basins at the plants pending development of an acceptable recovery process. (3) Cyanide, Phenol Disposal . A firm in Houston, Texas, as early as 1968 was made aware that its practice of discharging such hazardous waste as cyanides (25.40 ibs./day, or 11.5 kilograms/day), phenols (2.1 lbs./day, or 0.954 kilograns/day), sulfides, and aim onia into the Houston ship channel was creating severe environmental debilitation. The toxic wastes in question are derived from the cleaning of blast furnace gas from coke plants. Based on expert testimony, levels as low as 0.05 mg/i of cyanide effluent are known to be lethal to shrimp and small fish of the species found in the Galveston Bay area. Alternative disposal methods involving deep well injection were recommended by the firm and the Texas Water Quality Board. EPA rejected this proposal and the firm in question was enjoined by the courts to cease and desist discharging these wastes into the ship channel. Sitsequently, the courts have ruled in favor of EPA that deep well injection of these wastes is not an environmentally acceptable disposal method at this site. (4) Arsenic Contamination . A chemical company in Harris County, Texas, that produces insecticides, weed killers, and similar products containing arsenic has been involved in litigation over the discharge of arsenic waste onto the land and adjacent waters. Charges indicate that waste containing excessive arsenic was discharged into, or adjacent to, Vince Bayou causing arsenic-laden water drainage into public waters. This company and its predecessor have a long history of plant operation at this site. Earlier, waste disposal was accomplished by dumping the waste solids in open pits and ditches on the company’s property. This practice was abandoned in 1967 in favor of a proposed recycling process. However, as of August 1971, actions were taken on behalf of the county to enjoin manufacturing operations at the plant because of alleged excessive arsenic discharge into the public waters. No other information is available regarding the current status of court actions or disposal practices. (5) Insecticide Dumping . (a) In mid-1970, an applicator rinsed and cleaned a truck rig after dumping unused Endrin into the Cuivre River at Mosco Mills, Missouri. This act resulted in the killing of an estimated 100,000 fish and the river was closed to fishing for one year by the Missouri Game and Fish Commission. (b) In mid-1972, a chemical manufacturing company in Waterloo, Iowa, burned technical mevinphos (phosdrin), resulting in gross contamination to the plant area. Approximately 2,000 pounds (908 kilograms) of previously packaged material were dumped and left for disposal. After discussion with EPA Region VII office personnel and appropriate Iowa agencies, the area was neutralized with alkali and certain of the materials were repackaged for disposal by a private hazardous waste disposal firm in Sheffield, Illinois. 70 ------- (6) Trace Phenol Discharge . During 1970, the Kansas City, Missouri, water supply contained objectionable tastes and odors due to a phenolic content. It was alleged, and subsequent investigation indicated, that fiberglass wastes dumped along the river bank upstream was the source of the tastes and odors. The waste was coated with phenol and was possibly being washed into the river. Action was taken to have the dump closed and sealed. (7) Fatality Caused by Discharge of Hydrocarbon Gases Into River . In July 1969, an Assistant Dean at the University of Southern Mississippi died of asphyxiation while fishing in a boat in the Leaf River near Hattiesburg, Mississippi. The victim’s boat drifted into a pocket of propane gas that reputedly had been discharged into the river through a gasline terminal “wash pipe” from a petroleum refinery. (8) Cyanide Discharge . Part of the Lowry AFB Bon ing Range, located 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) east of Denver was surplused and given to Denver as a landfill site. As of July 1972, the Lowry site was accepting, with the exception of highly radioactive wastes, any wastes delivered without inquiry into the contents and without keeping anything more than informal records of quantities delivered. Laboratorytestsof surface drainage have indicated the presence of cyanide in ponded water downstream from the site. Significant amounts of cyanide are discharged in pits at the disposal site, according to the site operator. Short-lived radioactive wastes from a nearby medical school and a hospital also are accepted at this site. These wastes are apparently well protected, but are dumped directly into the disposal ponds rather than being buried separately. The Denver County Comissioners received a complaint that some cattle had died as the result of ingesting material washed downstream from this site. Authorities feel this occurred because of runoff caused by an overflow of the disposal ponds into nearby Murphy Creek after a heavy rainstorm. (9) Arsenic Dump - Groundwater Contamination . A laboratory company in the north central United States has been utilizing the same dump site since 1953 for solid waste disposal. Of the total amount (500,000 cubic feet or 14,150 cubic meters) dumped as of 1972, more than half is waste arsenic. There are several superficial monitoring wells (10-20 feet deep or 3.05-6.10 meters) located around the dump site. Analyses of water samples have produced an arsenic content greater than 175 ppm. The dump site is located above a limestone bedrock aquifer, from which 70 percent of the nearby city’s residents obtain their drinking and crop irrigation water. There are some indications that this water is being contaminated by arsenic seepage through the bedrock. (10) Poisoning of Local Water Supply . Until approximately two years prior to June 1972, Beech Creek, Waynesboro, Tennessee, was considered pure enough to be a source of drinking water. At that time, waste polychlorinated 71 ------- biphenyls (PCB) from a nearby plant began to be deposited in the Waynesboro city dump site. Dumping continued until April 1972. Apparently, the waste, upon being off-loaded at the dump, was pushed into a spring branch that rises under the dump and then empties into Beech Creek. Shortly after depositing of such wastes began, an oily substance appeared in the Beech Creek waters. Dead fish, crawfish, and waterdogs were found and supported wildlife also was being affected (e.g., two raccoons were found dead). Beech Creek had been used for watering stock, fishing, drinking water, and recreation for decades. Presently, the creek seems to be affected for at least 10 miles (16.09 kilometers) from its source and the pollution is moving steadily downstream to the Tennessee River. Health officials have advised that the Creek should be fenced off to prevent cattle from drinking the water. Category II _ - _ Mismanagement of Waste Materials In the presence of locally imposed air and water effluent restrictionsf prohibitions, industrial concerns attempt to manage disposal problems by storage, stockpiling, and/or lagooning. In many instances, the waste quantities become excessive and environmental perils evolve as a result of leaching during flooding or rupturing of storage lagoons. Instances of this type of waste management problem which have been reported are shown in the following: (1) Fish Kills (one of many examples) . On June 10, 1967, a dike containing an alkaline waste lagoon for a steam generating plant at Carbo, Virginia, collapsed and released approximately 400 acre-feet (493,400 cubic meters) of fly ash waste into the Clinch River. The resulting contaminant slug moved at a rate of one mile/hr. (1.6 kilometers/hour) for several days until it reached Norris Lake in Tennessee; whereupon, it is estimated to have killed 216,200 fish. All food organisms in the 4 mile (6.43 kilometers) stretch of river immediately below Carbo were completely eliminated. The practice of waste disposal by lagooning is a notoriously inadequate method which lends itself to negligence and subsequent mishaps. (2) Phosphate Slime Spill . On December 7, 1971, at a chemical plant site in Fort Meade, Florida, a portion of a dike forming a waste pond ruptured releasing an estimated two billion gallons (7.58 billion liters) of slime con osed of phosphatic clays and insoluble halides into Whidden Creek. Flow patterns of the creek led to subsequent contamination of Peace River and the estuarine area of Charlotte Harbor. The water of Charlotte Harbor took on a thick milky white appearance. Along the river, signs of life were diminished, dead fish were sighted and normal surface fish activity was absent. No living organisms were found in Whidden Creek downstream of the spill or in Peace River at a point eight miles downstream of Whidden Creek. Clam and crab gills were coated with the milky substance and in general all benthic aquatic life was affected in some way. (3) Mismanagement of Heterogeneous Hazardous Waste . A firm engaged in the disposal of spent chemicals generated in the Beaumont-Houston area ran into considerable opposition in Texas and subsequently transferred its disposal operations to Louisiana. In October, 1972, this firm was storing 72 ------- and disposing toxic chemicals at two Louisiana locations: De Ridder and De Quincy. At the De Ridder site, several thousand drums of waste (both metal- and cardboard-type, some with lids and some without) were piled up at the end of an airport runway apron within a pine tree seed orchard. Many of the drums were popping their lids and leaking, and visible vapors were emanating from the area. The pine trees beside the storage area had died. At the same time, the firm was preparing to bury hundreds of drums of hazardous wastes at the De Quincy location, which is considered by EPA to be hydrogeologically unsuitable for such land disposal. Finally, court action enjoined this firm from using the De Ridder and De Quincy sites; however, the company has just moved its disposal operations near Villa Platte in Evangeline Parish, where the same problems exist. (4) Arsenic Waste Mishap . Since August 1968, a commercial laboratory in Myerstown, Pennsylvania, has disposed of its arsenic waste by surface storage within the plant area. (Form of waste materials not known.) This practice apparently has led to contamination of the ground and subsequent migrations into groundwaters via leaching, ionic migration actions, etc., abetted by the geologic and edaphic character of the plant site. In order to meet discharge requirements and/or eliminate the waste hazard, the company has had to design and construct a system of recovery wells to collect the arsenic effluent from ground waters in the area. Recovered arsenic and current arsenic waste (previously stored on the land) are now retained in storage lagoons. Presumably, the sludge from these lagoons is periodically reclaimed in some way. Lagoons of this type are generally not well attended and frequently result in environmental catastrophes. (As evidenced under case 1 above.) (5) Contaminated Grain . (a) Grant County, Washington . In 1972, mercury-treated grain was found at the Wilson Creek Dump by an unsuspecting farmer. He hauled it to his farm for livestock feed. The episode was discovered just before the farmer planned to utilize the grain. (b) Albuquerque, New Mexico . Three children in a family became seriously ill, in 1970, after eating a pig which had been fed corn treated with a mercury compound. Local health officials found several bags of similarly treated corn in the community dump. (6) Radioactive Waste; Steven County, Washington . Low level radioactive waste is lying exposed on about 10 acres (4.05 hectares) of ground and is subject to wind erosion. The waste comes from an old uranium processing mill. County and State officials are concerned because, although it is of low radioactivity.level, it is the same type that caused the public controversy at Grand Junction, Colorado. (7) Waste Stockpiling Hazard; King County, Washington . (a) All types of waste chemicals have been dumped into the old Dodgers Nunter Five Coal Mine shaft for years. Much of this practice has stopped but sneak violations still occur. 73 ------- (b) Expended pesticides have been stored in old wooden buildings in the area that are very susceptible to fire. Several fires have occurred. In addition, large numbers of pesticide containers have been stacked at open dumps. (8) Chlorine Holdin Pond Breach . A holding pond and tanks at a chemical manufacturing plant in Saltville, Virginia failed,spilling chlorine, hypochiorites and amonia into the North Fork Holston River. River water samples showed concentration levels at 0.5 ppm hypochiorite, and 17.0 ppm of fixed aninonia. Dead fish were sighted along the path of the flow in the river. (9) Malpractice Hazard; Bingham County, Idaho . Several drums of a 15 year old chemical used for soil sterilization were discovered in the warehouse of the weed control agency. It was taken to a remote area where it was exploded with a rifle blast. Had it been disturbed only slightly while in storage, several people would have been killed. (10) Explosive Waste; Kitsap County, Washington . Operations at a Naval Amunition Depot involved washing RDX (a high explosive) out of shells from 1955-1968, and the resulting wash water went into a dump. In routine monitoring of wells in the area, the RDX was found in the groundwater and in several cases the concentrations exceed the health tolerance level of 1 ppm. (11) Unidentified Toxic Wastes . A disposal company undertook to dispose some drums containing unidentified toxic residues. Instead of properly disposing of this material, the disposal company dropped these drums off at a dump located in Cabayon, Riverside County, California. Later, during a heavy flood, the drums were unearthed, gave off poisonous gases, and contaminated the water. Steps were taken to properly dispose of the unearthed drums. (12) Container Reclamation . At a drum reclaiming plant in northern California, 15 men were poisoned by gases given off from the drums. It is presumed that this incident occurred because of inadequate storage procedures by the company involved. (13) Stockpiling of Hazardous Waste (Great Britain) Several sheep and cattle and a foxhound dTed, and many cattle became seriously affected, on two farms close to a factory producing rodenticides and pesticides. The drainage from the factory led into a succession of ponds to which the animals had unrestricted access, and from which they are therefore likely to have driu k. Investigations showed that a field on the site was a dumping ground for large metal drums and canisters, many of which had rusted away and their contents were seeping into the ground. Residues from the manufacture of fluoroacetamide were dumped on the site, and percolated into the drainage ditches leading to the farm ponds. Veterinary *Case illustrates the similarity of problems that exist in highly industrialized nations. 74 ------- evidence indicated the assimilation of fluoroacetamide compatible with the animals having drunk contaminated water. Ditches and ponds were dredged and the sludge deposited on a site behind the factory. All sludges and contaminated soil were subsequently excavated, mixed with cement, put into steel drums capped with bitumen, and dumped at sea. The presence of fluoroacetamide in the soil and associated water samples persisted at very low, but significant levels, and thus delayed the resumption of normal farming for nearly two years. (14) Pesticides in Abandoned Factory . In the sumer of 1972, approximately 1,000 pounds (454 kilograms) of arsenic-containing pesticidewere discovered in an abandoned factory building in Camden County, New Jersey. The building used to belong to a leather tannery that had discontinued its operations. (15) Ground Water Contamination by Chromium- and Zinc-containing Sludge . An automobile manufacturing company in the New York area is regularly disposing of tank truck quantities of chromium- and zinc-containing sludge through a contract with a trucking firm, that in turn has a subcontract with the owner of a private dump. The sludge is dumped in a swampy area, resulting in contamination of the ground water. The sludge constitutes a waste residue of the automobile manufacturer’s paint priming operati ons. (16) Disposal of Chromium Ore Residues . A major chemical company is currently depositing large quantities of chromium ore residues on its own property in a major city on the East Coast. These chromium ore residues are piled up in the open, causing probable contamination of the ground water by leaching into the soil. (17) Dumping of Cadmium-containing Effluents into the Hudson River . A battery plant in New York State for years was dumping large amounts of cadmium-containing effluents into the Hudson River. The sediment resulting from the plant’s effluents contained about 100,000 ppm of cadmium. The firm now has agreed to deposit these toxic sediments in a specially insulated lagoon. (18) Pesticide Poisoni g . On July 3, 1972, a 2 1/2 year old child in Hughes, Arkansas, became ill after playing among a pile of fifty-five gallon (208 liter) drums. He was admitted to the hospital suffering from symptoms of organophosphate poisoning. The drums were located approximately fifty feet (15 meters) from the parents’ front door on city property. The city had procured the drums from an aerial applicator to be used as trash containers. The residents were urged to pick up a drum in order to expedite trash collection. It has been determined that these drums contained various pesticides, including methyl parathion, ethyl parathion, toxaphene, DDT, and others. The containers were in various states of deterioration, and enough concentrate was in evidence to intoxicate a child or anyone Olse who was unaware of the danger. (19) Improper Disposal of Aldrin-treated Seed and Containers . On July 9, 1969, in Patterson, Louisiana, the owner of a farm noticed several pigs running 75 ------- out of a cane field; some of the animals appeared to be undergoing convulsions. It appears that aidrin-treated seed and containers had been dumped on the land in a field and that the pigs, running loose had encountered this material. Eleven of the pigs died. Analysis of rumen contents showed 230.7 ppm aidrin and 1.13 ppm dieldriri. (20) roper Pesticide Container Disposal . In May 1969, in Jerome, Idaho, Di-Syston was incorporated into the soil in a potato field. The “empty” paper bags were left in the field, and the wind blew them into the adjacent pasture. Fourteen head of cattle died, some with convulsions, after licking the bags. Blood samples showed .0246 ppm Di-Syston. (21) Ocean Dumping of Chemical Waste . The Houston Post reported in December 1971 that large quantities of barrels containing chemical wastes had turned up in shrimpers’ nets in the Gulf of Mexico approximately 40 miles (64.3 kilometers) off the Texas coastline. Aside from physical damages to nets and equipment,the chemical wastes caused skin burning and eye irritation among exposed shrimper crewmen. Recovered barrels reportedly bore the names of two Houston-area plants--both of whom apparently had used a disposal contractor specializing in deep sea disposal operations. Category III - Radioactive Waste Disposal (1) National Reactor esting Station . In October 1968, the Idaho Department of Health and the former Federal Water Quality Administration made an examination of the waste treatment and disposal practices at the AEC National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS) near Idaho Falls, Idaho. There were three types of plant wastes being generated: radioactive wastes, chemical or industrial wastes, and sanitary wastes. It was found that there were no observation wells to monitor the effects of the burial ground on water quality, that low-level radioactive wastes were being discharged into the ground water, that chemical and radioactive wastes had degraded the ground water beneath the NRTS, and that some sanitary wastes were being discharged into the ground water supply by disposal wells. In a report issued in April 1970, authorities recommended that the AEC abandon the practice of burying radioactive waste above the Snake Plain aquifer, remove the existing buried wastes to a new site remote to the NRTS and hydrologically isolated from groundwater supplies, and construct observation wells that are needed to monitor the behavior and fate of the wastes. (2) De-Comlssioning of AEC Plant . The Enrico Fermi nuclear reactor just outsl of Detroit is closing. However, there still remains a substantial waste management problem. The owner of the plant has set aside $4 million for de-convnisslonlng the plant. A preliminary de-coninlssioning plan and cost estimate have been submitted to the AEC. However, the AEC acknowledges that costs and procedures for de-coffinissioning are still unknown, since few nuclear plants (and never one such as Fermi) have been de. .com1 sloned, As of this date, an answer Is still being sought to this waste disposal problem. 76 ------- (3) Nuclear Waste Disposal , After a fire on May 11, 1969 at the Rocky Flats plutonium production plant near Denver, Colorado, it was discovered that since 1958 the company that operated the plant had been storing outside on pallets fifty-five gallon drums of laden oil contaminated with plutonium.* The drums corroded and the plutonium-contaminated oils leaked onto the soil in the surrounding area. Soil sample radioactivity measurements made in 1970-71-at various locations on the Rocky Flats site indicated that the surrounding area was contaminated 100 times greater than that due to world-wide fallout. The increase in radioactivity as defined by the health and safety laboratory of AEC was attributed to the plutonium leakage from the stored fifty-five gallons drums rather than any plutonium that might have been dispersed as a result of the 1969 fire. Later the area where the plutonium contaminated laden oil was spilled was covered with a four inch slab of asphalt and isolated by means of a fence. The fifty-five gallon drums were moved to a nearby building and the plutonium was salvaged from the oil. The oil was dewatered and solidified into a grease-like consistency. Then the drums and the solidified oil were sent to and buried at the National Reactor Testing Station at Idaho Falls, Idaho. * Containing measurable quantities of plutonium. 77 ------- Appendix B HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAM DATA Identifying and quantifying the Nation’s hazardous waste streams proved to be especially formidable, because historically there has been little interest in quantifying specific amounts of waste materials with the exception of radioactive wastes. Distribution and volume data by Bureau of Census regions were compiled on those non—radioactive waste streams designated as hazardous (see Table B-i). Table B-2 identifies those states geographically dis- tributed within the nine Bureau of Census regions. The approach used is predicated on the assumption that the hazardous properties of a waste stream will be those of the most hazardous pure compound within that waste stream. Using threshold levels established for the various hazardous properties, wastes containing compounds with values more than or equal to these thresholds are classified as hazardous. This approach takes advan- tage of the available hazard data on pure chemicals and avoids speculation on potential compound interactions within a waste stream. Table 8-3 serves to illustrate what types of chemical compounds in the Nation’s waste streams could be regarded as hazards to public health and the environment. It should be noted that Table B-3 is not an authoritative enumeration of hazardous compounds but a sample list which will be modi- fied on the basis of further studies.* Table B-4 identifies those radio- active isotopes that are considered hazardous.t Detailed data sheets describing the volumes, constituents, concentrations, hazards, disposal techniques, and data sources for each waste stream are available in EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762. It is important to emphasize that while Table B—i is sufficiently accurate for planning purposes, the indicated total national non- radioactive hazardous waste volume of 10 million tons (9 million metric tons) per year is not a firm number but an estimate based on currently available information. A more accurate indication of actual waste volumes will become available only after a comprehensive national waste inventory has been accomplished for specific waste streams. * Compounds on the list should not be construed as those to be regulated under the proposed Hazardous Waste Management Act. t From a disposal standpoint. 78 ------- Table B—i Summary Data For Nonradioactive Waste Streams 1031 Zinc Ore Roasting Acid Wash 333 Brass Mill Wastes 1099 Cadmium Ore Extraction 3312 Coke Plant Raw Waste 331 Consolidated Steel,Plant Wastes 331 Iron Manufacturing Waste Sludge 1021 Recovered Arsenic from Refinery Flues (Stored) 1092 Mercury Ore Extraction Wastes 3312 Stainless Steel Pickeling Liquor 333 Arsenic Trioxide from Smelting Industry 291 Copper and Lead Bearing Petroleum Refinery Wastes 3691 Battery Manufacturing Wastes 3691 Battery Manufacturing Waste Sludge 3692 Mercury Cell Battery Wastes 3585 Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing Wastes 3555 Duplicating Equipment Manufacturing Wastes 3555 Graphic Arts Photography Wastøs (Leather Press Plates) 3555 Rotogravure Printing Plate Wastes 3231 Mirror Production Wastes 372 Aircraft Plating Wastes 40 Arsenic Wastes from Transportation Indus try 40 Railroad Engine cleaning Geographic Distributio NE MA ENC WNC SA ESC WSC N M .04 .29 .01 .25 .01 .04 .04 .19 .13 .02 .33 .31 .01 .07 .02 .33 .42 .02 .09 .05 .05 .56 .02 .12 7X10 5 (Upstate, 3 New York) .06 .09 .04 .13 4X10 sIc t Waste Stream Title Fraction .02 .06 .02 .06 .02 .03 .02 .05 .03 .09 .03 .05 -- —— 1.00 —— .050 .259 .404 .026 .068 .055 .044 —— .03 .015 .07 .005 .01 .10 .001 .102 .175 .056 .019 .031 .417 Volume (ibs/yr ) 5X10 2X10 eX1. 0 5x]-0 6Xl0 4X10 (Tacoma, Wa.) 5X10 7 2X10 8Xl O 5X1C 8 *M&W CombincI 2Xl 0 .72 .28 .067 .028 .07 .70 .160 .039 .030 .236 .117 .043 .060 .138 .013 .232 1.00 .289 .111 .103 —— .118 .117 .556 .049 .074 .408 .096 .040 .029 .056 .019 .017 .069 .086 .134 .087* .045 .012 118 .011 .06 .19 .20 .08 .15 .105 .446 .320 .051 .019 —— .028 .09 .25 .23 .01 .28 .10 .04 .123 .158 .117 .093 .057 .013 .095 * Classified by Bureau of Census NE = New England MA = Mid Atlantic ENC = East North Central WNC = West North Central .031 .325 .019 9X10 6 4X 10 regions. ESC = East South Central WSC = West South Central W = West M Mountain SA = South Atlantic ------- SIC * Waste Stream Title Geographic Distribution — Fraction NE M? ENC WNC SA ESC WSC W M Volume (lbs/yr ) • 007 • 125 .050 .033 .085 • 107 2879 2979 2879 Benzoic Herbicide Contaminated Containers Calcium Arsenate Contaminated Containers Carbamate Pesticide Contaminated Con— -- .03 .0008 -— .02 .016 .655 .08 .382 .154 .006 .07 .16 .070 .022 .017 -— .16 .35 .108 .321 .160 .03 .060 .009 .09 .020 2X10 6X10 4 5 ) 10 User SIC #B G01, 2879 tainars Chlorinated Aliphatic Pesticide Contazni— .381 —— .076 .418 — — .105 .010 .010 —— ixio 02,07 Fore8try 2879 2879 2879 2879 nated Containers Dinitro Pesticide Contaminated Containers Løad Arsenate Contaminated Containers Mercury Fungicide Contaminated Containers Miscellaneous Organic Pesticide Contami— .496 .03 .02 .014 .168 .02 .03 .162 .023 .08 .04 .385 .017 .228 .07 .17 .03 .28 .068 .162 —- .003 .17 .35 .32 .05 .123 .041 .165 .08 .22 .034 .006 .03 .01 .014 2X10 4 1X10 5 Kb 4 1X10 -08 Trans.—40, 41,42,44,45 2879 nated Containers Miscellaneous Organic Insecticide Contain— .148 .084 .054 .039 .197 .143 .148 .170 .017 4Kb 4 2879 2879 2879 2879 2879 2879 mated Containers Organic Arsenical contaminated Containers Organic Fungicide Contaminated Containers Orgar*ophosphoroue Contaminated Containers Phanoxy Contaminated Containers Ph.nyl—Urea Contaminated Containers Polychlorinated Hydrocarbon Contaminated -- .048 .043 .035 .106 .017 .764 .001 .192 .030 .424 .211 3 5x 10 4 8 K b 5 1Kb 5 2X10 3 9X10 5 2X10 2879 Containers Triazine Contaminated Containers .147 .121 .320 .372 .013 .003 .011 .011 .002 4 6X10 2879 Wastes from Pesticide—Herbicide Mama— .005 .075 .145 .074 .299 .207 .090 .058 .046 factur. (Ars.nites) 2879 2879 Bensoic Herbicide Wastes (DOD, Chlorinated Aliphatic Herbicide Wastes(DOD .168 .196 .130 .062 .009 .027 - — .447 —— .649 -- —— -- .010 .246 -— —— .057 3X10 5X10 3 2879 Organic Arsenicals from Production of -- .200 .800 -- -- -- -- -- -— 2879 2879 2879 Cacodylatee Phenyl—Ursa Herbicide Wastes (DOD) Phenoxy Herbicide WaStes (DOD) Halogenated Aliphatic Hydrocarbon F sni- .539 .0002 1.0 .059 .0001 -— —— .0007 -- -- .343 —— .0008 -- —- .059 -- .849 .149 -- -- .0004 -- .0002 —- 2X10 8X10 2 2X10 gant Wastes (DOD) 2879 Mercuric Fungicide Production Wastes .005 .075 .145 .074 .299 .207 .090 .058 .046 2816 Chromate Wastes from Pigments and DyeS .015 .170 .156 .047 .156 .111 .265 .060 .020 22 Chroinate Wastes from Textile Dying .101 .178 .034 .005 .568 .034 .014 .060 .006 .047 .018 .196 .106 .019 .028 .125 .321 .033 .138 .011 .441 .139 .031 .106 .306 .218 036 .175 .067 .042 .133 .266 .208 .146 .095 .044 .007 .049 .141 .003 .024 7 2X10 r ixirnuin ------- SIC I West. Stream Title 2865 Dye Manufacturing Wastes 283 Drug Manufacturing Wastes 2092 Nitrocellulose Propellant Contaminated Wastes 2892 nigh Explosive Contaminated Wastes 2092 Waste Incindjarjeg 2092 Incindiary Contaminated Wastes 2892 Wastes from Production of Nitrocellulose Propellants and Smokeless Powder 2092 Production of Nitroglycerin 2892 Solid Waste from Old Primers and Detonators 2892 Contaminates and Waste from Primary Explosives Production 2879 Miscellaneous Organic Herbicide Pro- duction Wastes 2879 Phenoxy Herbicide Production Wastes 2092 Waste High Explosives 2892 Waste Nitrocelluloge and Smokeless Powder 2892 Waste Nitroglycerin 2892 Contaminated and Wait. Industrial Pro- pellants and Explosives Contaminated Orchard Soil Wastes from Seed Industry Eighly Contaminated Soil (Stored) Organic Pesticide Production Wastes Organic Fungicide Production Wastes .005 .094 .394 .397 .027 —— .014 .002 .002 —— —— —— .060 .046 87 .477 :: —— —— —— —— .42 —— .005 .430 .454 .001 —— .096 .001 .898 —— .001 —— .001 .003 .076 .135 .124 .080 .156 .062 .1 8 .200 .059 .135 .124 .080 .156 .006 .346 .174 .218 .594 .406 —— .01 —— .50 .22 —— .266 .004 —— —— —— .655 .344 .05 —— .15 —— .33 .017 .088 .371 .213 .053 .060 .081 .094 .023 —— —— -— 1.0 .057 .093 .183 .054 .062 .107 .202 .058 (Rocky Mountain Ar sena 1) Geographic Distribution — Fraction NE MA ENC WNC SA ESC WSC W M .015 .170 .156 .047 .156 .111 .265 .060 .020 .056 .348 .183 -— .041. —— .089 .100 .457 .492 Vo1 m e (lbslvr) .033 .060 .115 .011 —— — —— .009 .004 .718 106 5x10 , lXl O 7 9X10 5 6X10 6x lo .012 .023 .255 .009 —— .025 .19 —— .39 —— 7X10 5 .006 —— .014 .084 3X10 5 .076 .002 0175 011. 072 9711 2879 2879 .062 .104 .108 .200 .059 .127 .001 .010 4x10 6 4x10 8 4x10 7 1X1O 2X10 5X10 5 3X 10 .115 .148 .136 .076 .135 .124 -- .35 .09 .03 Unknown .073 .141 .086 .156 3X10 9 3x10 8 2x10 8 ------- SIC • Waits Stream Title Geographic Distribution — Fraction NE MA ENC WNC SA ESC WSC N N Volume (ibs/yr ) Solid Military Ars.nioal Wastes Contaminated or Outdated Tsar Gal Military Ordnance (MurLitioms & Explosives) -- Military Catuium Plating Wastes (US A !) —- Spent Filter Media from Military Opera- tioni 9711 Of f Spec “Agent Orange” Defoliant 9711 Paint Stripping Wastes, Vance Air Force -— Base OX Stored Military Mercury Compounds Chrome Tanning Liquor Nitrobensene from Rubber Industry Wastes Rubber Manufacturing Wastes Synthetic Fiber Production Wastes Acetaldehyde Via Ethylene Oxidation Cellulose Ester Production Wastes Wastes from Production of Chloropicrin Nonutility PCB Wastes 2818 O Synthesis Methanol Production Wastes 2611. Dimethy]. Sulfate Production Wastes 2818 Formaldehyde Production Wastes 2818 N-Butane D.hydrogenation Butadiene Production Wastes 2821 Wastes from Polycarbonate Polymer Production 2821 Residue from Manufacture of Ethylene Dichlorida/Viny ]. Chloride 2821 Urethane Manufacturing Wastes - - —— - - - - -- 1.0 - - -- (Vance Air Force Base, OX) .47 —— — — .51 — — —— — — .02 —— 215 .22 .29 .29 .03 .086 .05 .004 .03 —— 2X10 9 — — .07 .14 -— .11 .11 .50 .07 —— 5XlO (probably too dilute to be of con- cern) 6 —— .07 .14 —— .11 .11 .50 .07 —— 1X1 O .046 .12]. .101 .018 .404 .182 .101 .027 —— 7 .015 .170 .156 .047 .156 .111 .265 .060 .020 BX1O .10 .21 .21 .16 .14 .07 .10 .02 —— - - x -- -- —— —- x xx -- t4eg . 6 .037 .221 .372 .153 .040 .041 .057 .072 .009 8X10 —— .05 —— .05 —— .90 —— 1X10 5 —— —- —- — — 2X15 —— — .02 —— .05 —— .93 —— —— SX1O — — —— .03 — — — — —— .92 .05 —— 3X 10 .046 .121 .101 .018 .404 .182 .101 .027 — — .021 .015 —— .163 .171 .533 .117 —— 9711 9711 9221 9711 9711 9711 9711 31 2822 —— .002 .001 —— .015 .031 .001 .926 .024 .138 .189 —— .022 .044 .252 .209 .144 3X10 6 3X 10 2X 10 6 2822 2824 281 28211 9711 2899 Sludge Still Bottoms Sludge Sludge 2X10 7 .046 .121 .101 .018 .404 .182 .101 .027 —— ------- Wood Preservative Wast•a Spent Wood Preserving Liquors Agricultural Ch ical Manufacturing Wastes 2819 Arsenic Wastes from Purification of Phosphoric Acid 3339 Beryllium Salt Production Wastes 2813 Boran. Production Wastes 2812 Chlorine Production Brine Sludges 2869 Contaminated Antimony Pentafluoride 2869 Contaminated Antimony Trifluoride 2819 Contaminated Fluorine 2813 Nickel Carbonyl Production Wastes 2819 Cyanide Production Wastes 2869 Nydrazine Production Wastes 287 Intermediate Agricultural Product Wastes - Nitric Acid 2819 Potassiim Chromate Production Wastes 2873 Production Wastes for Arnmonium Sulfate 3339 Selenium Production Wastes 2819 Sodium Dichroinate Production Wastes 2869 Tetrauthyl and Tetralnethyl Lead Produc- tion Waste. 2873 Urea Production Wastes 2813 Waste Bromine Pentafluoride 2813 Waste Chlorine Pentafluorjde 2813 Waste Chlorine Trifluoride 2819 Waste from Production of Barium Salts 2879 Organo—Phosphate Pesticide Production Wastes 2879 Chioriftated Hydrocarbon Pesticide Pro- duction Wastes NE MA ENC WNC SA ESC WSC W M .007 .029 .117 .060 .267 .141 .174 .162 .042 4x10 2 .007 .029 .117 .060 .267 .005 .075 .145 .074 .299 .207 .174 .090 .162 .058 .042 .046 .015 .170 .156 .047 .156 .111 .265 .060 .020 Nag. .02 -- .10 -- -- - - - - —— .19 -- Meg. Meg. -— -- - - Meg. .007 .166 -- -— Meg. .147 Meg. .007 .166 .075 .147 Meg. x —- -- .005 .145 x .074 .299 .19 .06 .015 .005 .60 —— —— .04 — — — — —— .75 —— — — —— —— .05 .09 .18 .09 .15 .29 .14 —— 2X10 5 -- — — - - -- —- -- 1.0 - - - - Meg. - — - - X - - -- -- x - - -- Meg. —- —— X —- -- - - x —- —- Nag. .007 .101 .166 .075 .147 .207 .147 .096 .054 Meg. .115 .148 .136 .073 .141 .057 .093 .183 .054 6X10 7 .054 .054 .046 .01 .01 —— .96 —— .25 2X lo 1.0 1.0 .11 x x .101 1.0 .101 x .075 lxi 1X10 (dry basis chromate) 2X10 (particulates) 3X 10 8 3X10 SIC I Waste Stream Title 2491 2865 2491 287 (A) Volume (ibs/yr ) .12 .096 .096 .058 .22 .207 .207 .207 .10 .24 x x .147 .147 x .090 .01 .170 .63 .37 (dry basis) .115 .148 .136 .073 .141 .057 .093 .183 .054 2x10 8 ------- 8xc I Waste stream Title NE MA Geographic Distribution - Fraction ENC WNC SA ESC WSC W M Volume (ibs/yr ) 10 TOTAL approximately 2 x 10 lbs/yr. 9. or 9 X 10 kilograms/yr. (10 million T/yr or approx. 9 million .115 .131 .115 .115 .115 .115 • 115 .115 .115 .244 .03 .179 .285 .179 .179 .179 .179 .179 .179 .179 .198 .34 .379 321 379 .379 .379 • 379 .379 .379 .379 .149 .43 .046 .045 .046 .046 .046 .046 • 046 .046 .046 .095 .01 .050 .049 .050 .050 050 050 .050 .050 .050 • 081 .07 2819 Waits from Manufeotur. of Mercuric - 1.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- —- Meg. 3339 2813 Cyanide Th.13 .ii Production Waites Arsin. Production Wait.s —- x —— x -- x -- -- -- -- —— x 1.0 x —— x —- —— N .g. 4 (small amount in 1X1O Colorado) Metal Finishing Wast.u A1 aninum Anodizing Bath with Drag .115 .115 .179 .2.79 .379 .379 .346 .046 .050 .050 .015 .015 .036 .036 .169 .169 .011 .011 4X1Q Cyanide Solution BX1O Metal Sludges Out Brass Plating Wastes Ca uium Plating Wastes Chrome Plating Wastes Cyanide Copper Plating Wastes Finishing Effluents Metal Cleaning Wastes Plating Preparation Wastes Silver Plating Wastes Zinc Plating Wastes 33 Metal Finishing Chronic Acid 33]. Cold Finishing Wastes 9711 Waste Chemical, from Military Etiological Material, from Commercial Production Cooling Tower Slowdown .005 .150 .170 .060 -- .58 —— —— .035 2x10 7 (as Chromate) 2816 22 283 283 285 285 28 9711 Cadmium-Selenium Pigment Wastes Mercury Bearing Textile Cleaning WaStes Pharmaceutical Ar•enic Wastes Pharmaceutical Mercurial Wastes Water—Based Paint sludge Solvent—Based Paint Sludge Waste or Contaminated Perchloric Acid Military Sodium Chromate (Stored) .101 .056 .056 .044 .044 —— .178 .348 .348 .243 .243 —— .034 .183 .183 .269 .269 —- .005 .089 .089 .072 .072 -— .568 .100 .100 .103 .103 -- .034 .033 .033 .041 .041 —— .014 .060 .060 .069 .069 —— .060 .115 .115 .147 .147 —— .006 .011 .011 .012 .012 —— Meg. Meg. 7 3X10 7 4X10 Meg. 2,765 (Okinawa) .015 .023 .015 .015 .015 .015 .015 .015 .015 .032 .02 .036 .036 .036 .036 .036 .036 .036 .036 .036 .031 .05 .169 .103 .169 .169 .169 .169 .169 .169 .169 .031 .01 .011 .007 1X10 6 .011 .011 011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .041 04 5xl0 3X1 0 3X1 0 metric tons). ------- Table B—2 States within Bureau of Census Regions New England Mid Atlantic East North Central West North Central South Atlantic Maine New York Wisconsin North Dakota West Virginia Vermont Peansylvania Michigan South Dakota Delaware New Hampshire New Jersey Illinois Minnesota Maryland Massachusetts Indiana Nebraska Virginia Rhode Island Ohio Iowa North Carolina Connecticut Kansas South Carolina Missouri Georgia Florida District of Columbia East South Central West South Central Mountain Pacific Iest ) Kentucky Oklahoma Montana Washington Tennessee Arkansas Idaho Oregon Mississippi Texas Wyoming California Alabama Louisiana Arizona Hawaii New Mexico Alaska Utah Nevada Colorado ------- Table B-3 MISCELLANEOUS INORGANICS A Sanqle List of Nonradioactive Hazardous Compounds Aninonium Chremate Minonium Dichromate Antimony Pentafi uoride Antimony Tn fluoride Arsenic Trichioride Arsenic Trioxide Cadmium (Alloys) Cadmium Chloride Cadmium Cyanide Cadmium Nitrate Cadmium Oxide Cadmium Phosphate Cadmium Potassium Cyanide Cadmium (Powdered) Cadmium Sulfate Calcium Arsenate Calcium Arsenite Calcium Cyanides Chromic Acid Copper Arsenate Copper Cyanides Cyanide (Ion) Decaborane Diborane Hexa borane Hydra zine Hydrazine Azide Lead Arsenate Lead Arsenite Lead Azide Lead Cyanide Magnesium Arseni te Manganese Arsenate Mercuric Chloride Mercuric Cyanide Mercuric Dianinonlum Chloride Mercuric Nitrate Mercuric Sulfate Mercury Nickel Carbonyl Nickel Cyanide Pentaborane -9 Pentaborane -11 Perchioric Acid (to 72%) Phosgene (Carbonyl Chloride) Potassium Arsenite Potassium Chromate Potassium Cyanide Potassium Dichromate Selenium Silver Azide Silver Cyanide Sodium Arsenate Sodium Arsenite Sodium Bichromate Sodium Chromate Sodium Cyanide Sodium Monofluoroacetate Tetra borane Thallium Compounds Zinc Arsenate Zinc Arsenite Zinc Cyanide HALOGENS & IPITERHALOGENS Bromine Pentafluoride Chlorine Chlorine Pentafluoride Chlorine Trifluoride Fluorine Perchi oryl Fl uori de MISCELLANEOUS ORGANI S Ac role in Alkyl Leads Carcinogens (In General) Chloropicrin Copper Acetylide Copper Chiorotetrazole Cyanuric Triazide Diazodinitrophenol (DDNP) Dimethyl Sulfate Di ni trobenzene Dinitro Cresols Di ni trophenol Di ni trotol uene Dipentaerythritol Hexanitrate (DPEHN) GB (Propoxy(2)-methylphosphoryl fluoride) Gelatinized Nitrocellulose (PNC) Glycol Dinitrate Gold Fulminate 86 Lead 2,4-Dinitroresorcinate (LDNR) Lead Styphnate Lewisite (2-Chioroethenyl Dichloroarsine) Mannitol Hexanitrate Nitroanil me Nitrocellulose Nitrogen Mustards (2,2’,2’ Tn chl orotri ethyl amine) Nitroglycerin Organic Mercury Compounds Pentachi oro phenol Picric Acid Potassium Dinitrobenzfuro— xan (KDNBF) Silver Acetylide Silver Tetrazene Tear Gas (CN) (Chioroaceto- phenone) Tear Gas (CS) (2-Chioroben- zylidene Malononitrile) Tetrazene VX (Ethoxy-rnethyl phos- phoryl N,N dlpropoxy-(2- 2), thiocholine) ORGANIC HALOGEN COMPOUNDS Aidrin Chlorinated Aromatics Chlordane Copper Acetoarseni te 2,4-D (2,4-Dichiorophenoxy- acetic Acid) DDD DDT Deme ton Dieldrin Endrin Ethylene Bromide Fluorides (Organic) Guthi on Heptachi or Li ndane Methyl Bromide Methyl Chloride Methyl Parathion Parathion Po ori nated BIphenyl s ------- Table 8—4 Potentially Hazardous Radionuclides* Nuclide Half—Life, Years Sourcet Nuclide Half-Life, Years Sourcet 1—3 12.33 1,2,3 Sm-151 93. 1 Be-lO 1,600,000. 2 Eu-152 13. 1 C-14 5730. 2 Eu-154 8.6 1 Na-22 2.601 2 Eu-l S S 4.8 1 Ci -36 301,000. 2 Gd-153 0.662 Ar—39 269. 2 Ho-l6f 1200. 1 Ca -41 130,000. 2 Tm-l70 0.353 3 Ca-45 0.447 2 Ta-182 0.315 3 V-49 0.907 2 I1-181 0.333 2 Mfl 5 4 0.856 2 Ir-192m 241. 3 Fe-55 2.7 2 Pb_210** 22.3 1,2 Co-60 5.27 2,3 Bi-210 3,500,000. 1 Ni-59 80,000. 2 Po-210 0.379 2,3 Ni-63 100. 2 Ra_226** 1,600. 1,2 Se-79 65,000. 1 Ra_228** 5•75 1 Kr-85 10.73 1 Ac_227** 2L77 1 Sr_90** 29. 1,3 Th_228** 1.913 1 Zr_93 * 950,000. 1 Th_229** 7,340. 1 Nb—93n 12. 1,2 Th_230** 77,000. 1,2 Nb-94 20,000. 2 Pa_231** 32,500. 1 Mo-93 3,000. 2 IJ_232** 72. 1 Tc-99 213,000. 1 lJ_233** 158,000. 1 Ru_106** 1.011 1,3 U_234** 244,000. 1 Rh-lOan 0.567 1 tJ-236 23,420,000. 1 Pd-107 6,500,000. 1 Np-237 2,140,000. 1 Ag-1l0n 0.690 1 Pu_236** 2.85 1 Cd- 109 1.241 1 Pu_238** 87.8 1,3,2 Cd-113m 14.6 1 Pu-239 24,390. 1,2 Sn-12 1m 50. 1 Pu_240** 6,540. 1,2 Sn-123 0.353 1 Pu_241** 15. 1,2 Sn- 126 100,000. 1 Pu_242** 387,000. 1 Sb-125 2.73 1,2 Am_241** 433. 1,3 Te—127m 0.299 1 Am-242m 152. 1 1-129 15,900,000. 1 Am_243** 7,370. 1 Cs-134 2.06 1 Cm_242** 0.446 1,3 Cs—135 2,300,000. Cm_243** 28. 1 Cs_137** 30.1 1,3 Cm_244** 17.9 1,3 Ce 144** 0.779 1,3 Cm_24 5 ** 8,500. 1 Pm-146 5.53 1 Cnl_246** 4,760, 1 Pm— 147 2.5334 1,3 Cm 247* 15,400,000. 1 * Criteria for inclusion of nuclides are: (a) That they have half-lives greater than 100 days. Nuclides with half-lives less than 100 days are assumed to decay to insignificance before disposal or are included in their long half-life parents. Note that this excludes nuclides such as 1-131 with an 8.065-day half-life. (b) That they shall not be naturally occurring because of their own long half-lives. This table excludes such nuclides as K-40, Rb-87, Th-232, U-235, and U-238 with half-lives greater than 108 years. There are also 75 potentially hazardous radionuclides that occur in research quantities that have not been included in this table. t Source tern : (1) Found in high-level radioactive wastes from fuel reprocessing plants, both government and industry. (2) Found in other nuclear power wastes such as spent fuel cladding wastes, reactor emissions and mine and mill tailings. (3) Found in wastes of nonnuclear power origin such as nuclear heat sources, irradiation sources, and biomedical applications. ** Indicates hazardous daughter radionuclides are present with the parent. 87 ------- Appendix C DECISION MODEL FOR SCREENING,SELECTING, AND RANKING HAZARDOUS WASTES This preliminary decision model was developed for interim use* in order to screen and select hazardous compounds and rank hazardous wastes. This appendix provides an explanation of the terminology and definitions utilized, and the exact mechanism for screening, selecting, and ranking. It is essential to make a clear distinction between development and application of criteria for purposes of designating hazardous wastes and development and application of a priority ranking system for hazardous wastes despite the fact that similar or related data must be manipulated. The distinction is that the hazardous waste criteria relate solely to the intrinsic hazard of the waste on uncontrolled release to the environ- ment regardless of quantity, pathways to man or other critical organisms. Therefore criteria such as toxicity, phytotoxicity, genetic activity, and bloconcentration were utilized. In contrast, in the development of a priority ranking system, it is obvious that the threat to public health and environment from a given hazardous waste is strongly dependent upon the quantity of the waste involved, the extent to which present treatment technology and regulatory activities mitigate against the threat, and the pathways to man or other critical organisms. Criteria for Screening and Selection The screening criteria are based purely on the inherent or intrinsic characteristics of the waste as derived from its constituent hazardous compounds. The problem in seeking a set of criteria becomes one of establishing for public health and the environment some acceptable level of tolerance. Wastes displaying characteristics outside of these pre- determined tolerance levels are designated as hazardous. This approach requires that defensible thresholds be selected for each tolerance level. For example, if the toxicity threshold is defined as an LD5O of 5,000 mg/Kg of body weight or less, all wastes dieplaying equal or lower mean lethal dose levels would be designated hazardous. Similar nLtneric threshold values were developed for other basic physical, chemical or biological criteria utilized In the screening phase of the decision model. Ideally then, the decision criteria for designating hazardous wastes could be based upon numeric evaluations of intrinsic toxicological, physical, and chemical data. * The decision model used for purposes of this study is not nearly as sophisticated as that required for standard setting purposes. 88 ------- In addition, a criteria system for screening hazardous wastes must retain a degree of flexibility. This is self—evident because all poten- tial wastes cannot now be identified, let alone their composition. Con.- sequently, it appears that a technically sound and administratively work- able criteria system must have levels of tolerance against whiôh any waste stream can be compared. As a result a preliminary screening model was developed as illustrated in Figure C-l. Each stage of the screening mechanism compares the charac- teristics of a waste stream to some preset standard. Qualification due to any one or more screens automatically designates a waste as hazardous. Explanations of those terms that have been utilized in the screerning model in Figure C-l are enclosed at the end of this appendix. Priority Rankin2 of Wastes There is little doubt that, on the basis of intrinsic properties alone, many wastes will qualify as hazardous wastes. Therefore it was necessary to rank these wastes in priority fashion so that those pre- senting the most iminent threats to public health and the environment receive the greatest attention. To assess the magnitude of the threat posed by hazardous wastes is difficult. Such a determination requires input concerning the inherent hazards of the wastes, the quantities of waste produced, and the ease with which those hazards can be eliminated or circumvented. These considerations were incorporated into numerical factors, which in turn were used to determine the priority-of-concern of a particular waste. The final numeri- cal factor is designed to represent the volume of the environment poten- tially polluted to a critical level by a given waste. The assumption is made that all sectors of the environment are equally valuable so that a unit volume of soil is as important as a unit volume of water or air. This simplification does not reflect the fact that atmospheric and aquatic contaminants are more mobile than terrestrial ones, but does recognize the problem of environmental transfer from one phase to another. The numerical factor is derived by dividing the volume of a waste by Its lowest critical product. This may be expressed mathematically as R= where R = ranting factor Q = annual production quantity for the waste being ranked CP = critical product for the waste being ranked A critical product is the lowest concentration at which any of the hazards of concern become manifest in a given environment multiplied by 89 ------- Figure C-i Graphic Representation of the Hazardous Waste Screening Model* WASTE STREAMS DOES WASTE CONTAIN YES RADIOACTIVE CONSTITUTES > MPC LEVELS? _________ NO E } YES ISWAST [ FLAMMABILIr( YES IN NFPA CATAGORY 4? NO IS WASTE REACTIVITY YES INNFPA CATAGORY4? NO DOES WASTEHAVEANORALED YES 5OMGIKG? NO IS WASTE INHALATION TOXICITY YE 2OOppm GASORMIST? — LC%<2 MG1I AS DUST? NO IS WASTE DERMAL PENETRATION lOX IC liv 200 MG/KG? JNO IS WASTE DERMAL IRRITATION YES REACTION < _________ NO DOES WASTEHAV QUAT IC1 YES 96 HR TLM ____________ _____ NO IS WASTE PHYTOTOXICITYf ________________________ I L ’ 1D0O MG/i? J NO DOES WASTE CAUSE GENETIC __________________________ - CHANCES? L THEI WASTES AZARDOUS WASTE J * fjfljtjoflS of terms are given on p. 91 90 ------- an index representative of the waste’s mobility into that environment. Hence, for a waste which will be discharged to water or to a landfill where leaching will occur, the product might be the 96 hour Tim to fish for that waste (e.g. 1 mg/i) multiplied by its solubflity index. The solubility index is defined as a dimensionless number between 1 and infinity obtained by dividing i 6 mg/i by the solubility of the waste in mg/l. A waste soluble in water to 500,000 mg/i has a solubility index of: SI = i0 6 / 5x10 5 = 2 This presumes that all wastes miscible in water or soluble to more than 1,000,000 mg/i will have simflar mobility patterns and thus should receive a maximum index of 1. The critical product for the example waste would then be: CP = 96 hr TLm X SI C I ’ = 1 mg/i X 2 2 mg/i Similarly, for atmospheric pollutants the critical product might be the IC 50 multiplied by the volatility index. This index would be derived by dividing atmospheric pressure under ambient conditions by the vapor pressure of the waste. Potential for suspension of dusts in air would be given a mobility index of 1. The aqueous and atmospheric environments are of greatest concern since discharge to the land represents major hazards in the form of volatilization of wastes or leaching. Where data are available on phytotoxicity or other hazards related to direct contact with wastes In soil, the critical product for ranking would be derived from use of the critical concentration at which the hazard becomes apparent, and a mobility index of 1. Actual waste stream data is most desirable for use in the priority ranking formulation. However, since such data are generally lacking, the additive estimations recomended for interim use can be employed for priority ranking until waste stream data beeoe available. Definitions of Abbreviations Used in the Screening Model in Table C-i Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) Levels . These are levels of radiolsotopes in waste streams wMch if continuously maintained, would result in maximum permissible doses to occupationally-exposed workers, and may be regarded as Indices of the racliotoxicity of the different radionuci ides. Bioconcentration ( bioaccumu1ation, biomag ification) . The process by which llvfng organisms concentrate an element or compound to levels in excess of those in the surrounding environment. 91 ------- National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Category 4 Flamable Materials . These materials include very flamable gases, very volatile flaniriable liquids, and materials that in the form of dusts or mists readily form explosive mixtures when dispersed in air. NFPA Category 4 Reactive Materials . These are materials which in themselves are readily capable of detonation or of explosive decompo- sition or reaction at normal temperatures and pressures. Lethal Dose Fifty A calculated dose of a chemical substance which Is expected to viii 50 percent of a population of experimental animals exposed through a route other than respiration. Dose con- centration is expressed in milligrams per kilogram of body weight. Lethal Concentration Fifty (LC oj . A calculated concentration which when administered by the respiratory route would be expected to kill 50 percent of a population of experimental animals during an exposure of 4 hours. Ambient concentration is expressed in milligrams per liter. Grade 8 Dermal Irritation . An Indication of necrosis resulting from skin Irritation cause fby application of a 1 percent chemical solution. 96 Hour Thm çmedian threshold limit) . That concentration of a material at hich it is lethal to 50 percent of the test population over a 96 hour exposure period. Ambient concentration is expressed in milligrams per liter. Phytotoxicity . Ability to cause poisonous or toxic reactions in plants. Median Inhibitory Limit (ILm) . That concentration at which a 50 percent reduction In the blomass, céTi count, or photosynthetic activity of the test culture occurs when compared to a control culture over a 14 day period. Ambient concentration is expressed in milligram per liter. Genetic Changes . Molecular alterations of the deoxyribonucleic or ribo- nucleic acids of mitotic or melotic cells occurring from chemicals or electromagnetic or particulate rdfation. 92 ------- Appendix D SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESSES The objectives of hazardous waste treatment are the destruction or recovery for reuse of hazardous substances and/or conversion of these substances to innocuous forms which are acceptable for uncontrolled disposal. Several unit processes are usually required for complete treatment of a given waste stream. In some cases, hazardous residues result from treatment which cannot be destroyed, reused or converted to Innocuous forms. These residues, therefore, require controlled storage or disposal. This appendix presents a description of each of the treatment and disposal processes examined during this study. No claim is made that these hazardous waste treatment processes or combinations of processes and storage or disposal methods are environmentally acceptable. Treat- ment technology can be grouped into the following categories: physical, chemical, thermal, and biological. These processes are all utilized to some extent by both the public and private sectors. However, treatment processes have had only limited application in hazardous waste manage- ment because of economic constraints, and, in some cases, because of technologi cal constraints. The physical treatment processes are utilized to concentrate waste brines and remove soluble organics and amonia from aqueous wastes. Processes such as flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration are widely used throughout industry, and their primary function is the separation of precipitated solids from the liquid phase. Anmonia stripping is utilized for removing amonla from certain hazardous waste streams. Carbon sorption will remove many soluble organics from aqueous waste streams. Evaporation is utilized to concentrate brine wastes in order to minimize the cost of ultimate disposal. The chemical treatment processes are also a vital part of proper hazardous waste management. Neutralization is carried out in part by reacting acid wastes with basic wastes. Sulfide precipitation Is required in order to remove toxic metals like arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and antimony. Oxidation-reduction processes are utilized in treating cyanide and chromium-6 bearing wastes. Thermal treatment methods are used for destroying or converting solid or liquid combustible hazardous wastes. Incineration is the standard process used throughout industry for destroying liquid and solid wastes. Pyrolysis is a relatively new thermal process that is used to convert hazardous wastes into more useful products, such as fuel gases and coke. 93 ------- Biological treatment processes can also be used for biodegrading organic wastes; however, careful consideration needs to be given to the limitations of these processes. These systems can operate effectively only within narrow ranges of flow, composition, and concentration varia- tions. Biological systems generally do not work on solutions containing more than 1-5 percent salts. Systems which provide the full range of biodegradation facilities usually require large land areas. Toxic substances present a constant threat to biological cultures. In summary biological treatment processes should be used only when the organic waste stream is diluted and fairly constant in Its composition. Disposal methods currently used vary depending upon the form of the waste stream (solid or liquid), transportation costs, local ordinances, etc. Dumps and landfills are utilized for all types of hazardous wastes; ocean disposal and deep well Injection are used primarily for liquid hazardous wastes. Engineered storage or a secure landfill should be utilized for those hazardous wastes for which no adequate treatment processes exist. In Table D-1,each of the processes evaluated by EPA is described in more detail. Also provided is an assessment of each process’s waste handling capabilities. The most widely applicable processes are Incineration, neutralization, and reduction. 94 ------- Table D-l Summary of Hazardous Waste Treatment arid Disposal Processes Physical Treatment Processes Description Waste Handling Capability C ,’ 1. Reverse Osmosis 2. DialysIs 1. The physical transport of a solvent across a membrane boundary, where external pressure is applied to the side of less solvent concentration so that the solvent will flow in the opposite direction. This allows solvent to be extracted from a solution, so that the solution is concentrated and the extracted solvent Is relatively pure. 2. A process by which various substances in solution having widely different molecular weights may be separated by solute diffusion through semi-permeable membranes. The driving force is the difference in chemical activity of the transferred species on the two sides of the membrane. I. Almost any dissolved solid can be treated by reverse osmosis, provided the concentrations a e not too high and it Is practical to adjust the pH to range 3—8. 2. The oldest continuing commercial use of dialysis is in the textile industry. Dialysis is particularly applicable when concentrations are high and dialysis coefficients are disparate. It is a suitable means of separation for any materials on the hazardous materials list which form aqueous solutions. 3. Electrodlalysis 3. SImilar to dialysis in that dissolved solids are separated from their solvent by passage through a semi-permeable membrane. It differs from dialysis in Its dependence on an electric field as the driving force for the separation. 3. Electrodialysis is applicable when It Is desired to separate out a variety of ionized species from an unionized solvent such as. water. Ionizable nitrates and phosphates (e.g. Pb(NO ) 2 , Na 3 P0 4 ) are removed with varying degrees of efficiency. With regard to NDS, electrodialysis is ------- Physical Treatment Processes Description Waste Handling Capablflty applicable for the treatment of waste streams where it is desirable to reduce the concentrations of Ionizable species in the inteniied— late range (10,000 ppm to 500 ppm) over a broad range of pH (e.g., pH 1 to 14). If an effluent of concentration lower than 500 ppm is desired, the electrodlalysis effluent could be fed into another treatment process. 4. EvaporatIon 4. The removal of solvent as vapor from a solution or slurry. This Is normally accomplished by bringing the solvent to its boiling point to effect rapid vaporization Heat energy Is supplied to the solvent and the vapor evolved must be continuously removed from above the liquid phase to prevent Its accumulation. The vapor may or may not be recovered depending on its value. Thus, the principal function of evaporation is the transfer of heat to the liquid to be evaporated. 4. Evaporation processes are widely used throughout Industry for the concentration of solutions and for the production of pure solvents. Evaporation represents the most versatile wastewater processing method available that is capable of producing a high quality effluent. It is, however, one of the most costly processes and is therefore generally limited to the treatment of wastewaters with high solids concentrations or to wastewater where very high decontamination is required (e.g., radioactive wastes). ------- Physical Treatment Processes Description Waste Handling Capabilit 5. Carbon Sorption 6. AmmonIa Stripping 5. Sorption is said to occur when a substance is brought into contact with a solid and is held at the surface or inter- nally by physical and/or chemical forces. The solid is called the sorbent and the sorbed substance is called the sorbate. The amount of sorbate held by a given quantity of sorbent depends upon several factors including the surface area per unit volume or weight) of the sorbent and the intensity of the attractive forces. Activated carbon has been historically used to remove organic and other contaminants from water. 6. Ammonia can be readily removed from alkaline aqueous wastes by stripping with steam at atmospheric pressure, The waste stream, at or near its boiling point, is introduced at the top of a packed or bubble cap tray type column and contacted concurrently with steam. Due to Its high partial pressure over alkaline solutions, aimionia is condensed and reclaimed for sale, and liquid effluents from a properly designed steam stripping column will be essentially ammonia free. 5. Activated carbon •sorption has been used to remove dissolyed refractory organics from municipal waste streams and to clean up Industrial waste streams. It has been used to remove some heavy metals and other inorganics from water. Carbon sorption can remove most types of organic wastes from water. Those which have low removal by carbon include short carbon chain polar substances such as methanol, formic acid, and perhaps acetone. This process is being utilized to treat herbicide plant wastes. Also, full scale carbon sorption units have been success- fully used for petroleum and petrochemical wastes. 6. This process is quite useful in the treatment of amonia bearing wastes. However, It can also be used to remove various volatile and organic contaminants from waste streams. ------- Physical Treatment Processes 7. FiltratIon 8. SedImentation (settling) 7. ThIs process Involves the physical removal of the solid constitutes from the aqueous waste stream. A slurry is forced against a filter medium. The pores of the medium are small enough to prevent the passage of some of the solid particles; others Impinge on the fiber of the medium. Consequently, a cake builds up on the filter and after the initial deposition, the cake Itself serves as the barrier. The capacity of this process is governed by the rate of the fluid filtrate through the bed formed by the solid particles. 8. This process is used to separate aqueous waste streams from the particles suspended in is placed In a tank, allowed to settle out; removed from above the state is that of a a filter cake If the continue long enough. 9. This process Is used when fine particLes in a waste stream are d ff1cult to separate from the medium in which they are suspended. These waste constituents are in the low and fractional micron-range of sizes, they settle too slowly for economic sedimentation and they are often difficult to filter. Thus, this process Is applied to gather these particles together as flocculates which allows them to settle much faster and the resulting sediment is less dense and is often mobile. The particles also filter more readily into a cake which Is permeable and does not clog. Waste Handling Capability 7. Most of the aqueous hazardous waste streams which contain solid cOnstituents will be treated by this process. 8. SedImentation is widely used throughout industry for treatment of waste streams for which there is a need for separation of precipitated solids from the liquid phase. 9. Flocculation Is also widely used throughout In .- dustry for treatment of waste streams for which there is a need for separation of precipitated solids from the liquid phase. Description them. The suspension and the particles are the fluid can then be solid bed. The final packed bed resembling process Is allowed to 9. Flocculation ------- Chemical Treatment 0 Processes 1. Ion Exchange 2. Neutralization Description 1. The reversible interchange of ions between a solid and a liquid phase In which there is no permanent change in the structure of the solid. It Is a method of collecting and concentrating undesirable materials from waste streams. The mechanism of ion exchange is chemical, utilizing resins that react with either catlons or anions. 2. This method is utilized to prevent excessively acid or alkaline wastes from being discharged in plant effluents. Some of the methods utilized to neutralize such wastes ire: (a) mixing wastes such that the net effect is a near-neutral pH; (b) passing acid wastes through beds of limestone; Cc) mixing acid with lime slurries; (d) adding proper proportions of concentrated solutions of caustic soda NaOH) or soda ash to acid waste waters; e) blowing waste boiler—flue gas through alkaline wastes, (f) adding compreesed CO 2 to alkaline waste; and (h) adding suTfuric acid to alkaline wastes. Waste Handflng Capability 1. Ion exchange technology has been available and has been employed for many years for removing objectionable traces of metals and even cyanides from the various waste streams of the metal process industries. Objectionable levels of fluorides, nitrates, and manganese have also been removed from drinking water sources by means of Ion exchange. Technology has been developed to the extent that the contaminants that are removed can either be recycled or readily transformed into a harmless state or safely disposed. 2. Neutralization is utilized in the precipitation of heavy metal hydroxides. or hydrous oxides and calcium sulfate. ------- Cheulcal Treatment Processes Description Waste Handling Capability 3. OxIdation 3. This Is a process by which waste streams 3. ThIs process is used in the containing reductants are converted to treating of cyanides and other a less hazardous state. Oxidation may be reductants. achieved with chlorine, hypochiorites, ozone, peroxide, and other comon oxidizing agents. The method most comonly applied on a large scale Is oxidation by chlorine. 4. Reduction 4. ThIs is a process whereby streams 4. This process Is used to containing oxidants are treated with treat chroinlum—6 and other sulfur dioxide to reduce the oxidants to oxidants. less noxious materials. Other reductants which can be used are sulfite salts and ferrous sulfate depending on the availability end cost of these materials. 5. PrecipitatIon 5. The process of separating solid 5. This process Is applicable constituents from an aqueous waste to the treatment of waste streams stream by chemical changes. In this containing heavy metals. process, the waste stream is converted from one with soluble constituents to one with Insoluble constituents. 6. Calclnation 6. The process of heating a waste 6. Calcination is conunonly applied material to a high temperature but in the processing of high—level without fusing In order to effect useful radioactive wastes. changes, such as oxidation or pulverization. ------- Thermal Treatment Processes 1. Incineration Description 1. A controlled process to convert a waste to a less bulky, less toxic, or less noxious material. Most Incineration systems contain four basic components: namely, a waste storage facility, a burner and combustion chamber, an effluent purification device when warranted, and a vent or a stack. The (11) basIc types of incineration untts are: open pit, open burning, multiple hearth, rotary kiln, fluidized bed, liquid combusters, catalytic combustors, after burners, gas combustors, and stack flares. Waste Handling Capability 1. The type of waste for which each of these Incineration units is best suited is detailed dlagrannatically In Figure D-1. 2. Pyrolysis 2. The thermal decomposition of a compound. Wastes are subjected to temperatures of about 1200°F, (648°C), plus or minus 300°F(148°C), depending upon the nature of the wastes, in an essentially oxygen—free atmosphere. Without oxygen, the wastes cannot burn and are broken down (pyrolyzed) into steam, carbon oxides, volatile vapors and charcoal. 2. Most municipal and industrial wastes which are basically organic in nature can be converted to coke or activated charcoal and gaseous mixtures which may approach natural gas in heating values through the utilization of pyrolysis. ------- Figure D-l Types of Incinerators and Their Applications ------- -l o (A) Biological Treatment Processes 1. Activated Sludge Process Description ‘I. The activated sludge process may be defined as a system In which biologically active growths are contin- uously circulated and contacted with organic waste In the presence of oxygen. Normally, oxygen Is supplied to the system in the form of fine air bubbles under turbulent conditions. The activated sludge Is composed of the biologically active growths and contains microorganisms which feed on the organic waste. Oxygen Is required to sustain the growth Of the microorganisms. In the conventional activated sludge process incoming waste water Is mixed with recycled activated sludge and the mixture is aerated for several hours In an aeration tank. During this period, adsorption, flocculation, and various oxidation reactions take place which are responsible for removing much of the organic matter from the waste water. The effluent from the aeration tank Is passed to a sedimentation tank where the flocculated microorganisms or sludge settles out. A portion of this sludge I s recycled as seed to the Influent waste water. Waste Handling Capability 1. The activated sludge process has been applied very extensively in the treatment of refinery, petrochemical, and biodegradable organic waste waters. 2. Aera$ed Lagoon 2. A basin of significant depth (usually 6 to 17 feet or 1.83 to 5.19 meters), In which organic waste stabilization is accomplished by a dispersed biological growth system, and where oxygenation Is provided by mechanical or diffused aeration equipment. 2. Aerated Lagoons have been used successfully as an economical means to treat Industrial wastes where high quality effluents are not required. ------- Biological Treatment Processes Description Waste Handling Capability 3. Trickling Filter 3. Trickling filters are artificial beds of rocks or other porous me- dia through which the liquid from settled organic waste is percolated. In the process the waste is brought into contact with air and biological growths. Settled liquid is applied intermittently or continuously over the top surface of the filter by means of a djstributor. The fil- tered liquid is collected and dis- charged at the bottom. The primary removal of organic material is not accomplished through filtering or straining action. Removal is the result of an adsorption process similar to activated sludge which occurs at the surfaces of the bio- logical growths or slimes covering the filter media. 3. Trickling filters have been used extensively in the treat- ment of industrial wastes such as: acetaldehyde, acetic acid, acetone, acrolein, alcohols, benzene, butadiene, chlorinated hydrocarbons, cyanides, epichlo- rohydrin, formaldehyde, formic acid, ketones, monoethanolamines, phenol ics, proplylenedichioride, terpenes, ammonia, amrnonium nitrate, nylon and nylon chemical intermediates, resins, and rocket fuels. 4. Waste Stabilization Ponds 4. Waste Stabilization Ponds are large shallow basins (usually 2 to 4 feet or 0.61 to 1.22 meters deep) used for the purposes of purifying waste water by storage under climatic conditions that favor the growth of algae. The conversion of organics to inorganics or stabilization in such ponds results from the com- bined metabolic activity of bac- teria by the algae and by surface aeration. Wiste stabl1iz tion oonds have been widely used where land is plentiful and climatic conditions are favorable. 4. They have been used extensively in treating industrial wastewaters when a high degree of purification is not required. More recently, stab11lz tion pønds have proven to be successful in treating steel mill wastes. ------- Ultimate Disposal Processes Description Waste Handling Capability 1. LandfIll Disposal 1. A well controlled and sanitary method of disposal of wastes upon land. Comon land- fill disposal methods are: (a) mixing with soil, (b) shallow burial, and (c) combina- tions of these. 1. The utilization of landfill procedures for the disposal of certain hazardous waste materials at a NDS, in an industrial environment, or In municipal applications will undoubtedly be required in the future. ( 7 1 2. Deep Well Disposal 2. A system of disposing of raw or treated, filtered hazardous wastes y pumping the waste into deep wells where they are contained in the pores of the permeable sub- surface rock, separated from other ground- water supplies by Impermeable layers of rock or clay. 2. Subsurface Injection has been eztenslvely used in the disposal of oil field brines (between 10,000 and 40 000 brine injection wells in u.s.5. The number of industrial waste injection wells in the U.S. has increased to more than 100. Injection wells can be used by virtually any type of industry which is located In the proper geologic environment and which has a waste product amenable to this method. Industries presently using this method are chemical and pharmaceutical plants, refineries, steel and metal Industries, paper mills, coke plants, etc. 3. Land Burial Disposal 3. Adaptable to those hazardous materials that require permanent disposal. Disposal is accomplished by either near—surface or deep burial. In near-surface burial, the material is deposited either directly into the ground or Is deposited in stainless steel tanks or concrete lined pits beneath 3. At the present time, near—surface burial of both radioactive and chemical wastes are being conducted at several AEC and comercially operated burial sites. Pilot plant studies have been conducted for deep burial in salt formations and hard ------- Ultimate Disposal Processes Descri t1on the ground. In land burial the waste is transported to the selected site, where it is prepared for final burial. Waste Handling Capability bedrock. Land burial Is a possible choice for the hazardous materials that require complete containment and permanent disposal. This includes radioactive wastes as well as highly toxic chemical wastes. At the present time only near-surface burial is used for the disposal of most wastes. 4. Ocean Dumping 4. The process of utilizing the ocean as the ultimate disposal sink for all types of waste materials (Including hazardous wastes). There are three basic techniques for ocean disposal of hazardous wastes. One technique Is bulk disposal for liquid or slurry—type wastes. Another technique Is stripping obsolete or surplus World War II cargo ships, loading the ships with obsolete munitions, towing them out to sea, and scuttling them at s ue designated spot. The third technique is the sinking at sea of containerized hazardous toxic wastes. 4. The broad classes of hazardous wastes dumped at sea have been categorized as follows: Industrial wastes; obsolete, surplus, and nonserviceable convention explosive ordinance and chemical warfare and miscellaneous hazardous wastes. 5. EngIneered Storage 5. ThIs is a potential system to be utilized for those hazardous wastes (especially radioactive) for which no adequate disposal methods exist. Such a facility would have applicability until such time as a method for permènent disposal of these wastes Is developed. Such a near-ground—surface engineered storage facility must provide for the 5. This process Is being proposed for the long-term storage of high level radioactive wastes. Also, some low level radioactive wastes will probably go to engineered storage facilities. ------- Ultimate Disposal Processes Description following: (a) safe storage of the solidified hazardous wastes for long periods of time, and (b) retrievability of the wastes at any time during this storage. The ultimate goal is to transfer these wastes to a permanent disposal site when a suitable site Is found Waste Handling Capability -4 0 -‘4 6. DetonatIon 6. This Is the process of exploding a quasttty of waste with sudden violence. Detonation can be performed by several means which include thermal shock, mechanical shock, electrostatic charge, or contact with incompatible materials. Detonation of a single waste may be followed by secondary explosions or fire. 6. This technique is most coiiinonly applied to explosive waste materials. However, several flaimiable waste streams can also be detonated. ------- Appendix E ON-SITE VERSUS OFF-SITE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL Assuming that a hazardous waste generator elects to treat or dispose of his hazardous waste in an environmentally acceptable manner, an important economic decision that must be made by him is whether a particular waste stream should be processed on-site or off-site at some regional treatment facility. In order to make a sound business decision between these options an industrial manager must consider a number of variables such as the following: the chemical composition of the particular waste stream; the on-site availability and unit cost of a satisfactory treatment process; the quantity of the waste stream; and the distance to and user charge of the nearest off-site processing facility. To gain a general insight into the economics of this problem, information was compiled on eight comonly occurring industrial hazardous waste stream types, and a mathematical model was formulated. The mathematical model resulted in economic decision maps for each of the eight industrial waste categories. (Nine decision maps are attached, because two maps are included for heavy metal sludges.) As a result of this analysis, it was concluded that economic considerations favor the off-site treatment and disposal of seven out of the eight waste stream types examined. Only in the case of dilute aqueous heavy metals (Figure E-9) is the strategy of on-site treatment more economical. The decision map for concentrated heavy metals (Figure E-l) is typical. The following discussion will identify and interpret, point by point, those aspects of the map that are considered significant. Point A on the map represents data collected for a sample of actual waste sources. This point is defined by the mean separation between sources* and the mean source size (size as measured by waste stream volume). The position of point A on the map shows whether the on-site or off-site processing alternative is economically preferable. Here Point A lies comfortably within the OFF-SITE region of the map, and off-site processing of wastes collected from multiple sources is the most logical choice. The vertical lines corresponding to the smallest and largest sources in the sample are also sh n for perspective. For each of the stream types an attempt was made to include the largest single producer of the waste in the country. * By “mean separation between sources” is meant the average distance between some waste sources actually found within a particular region. 108 ------- Two other points on the map are of interest. Point B defines the separation between sources that would be required if on-site processing is to be feasible, assuming no change in the sample mean. For concentrated heavy metals, this change-of-strategy separation distance is 360 miles (580 kilometers) compared to the mean value of 81 miles (131 kilometers). Point C defines the source size at which on-site processing becomes feasible for sources separated by the sample mean separation. For concentrated heavy metals, this size is 16 million gallons per year (gpy) (61 million liters), compared to the sample mean of 325,000 gpy (1.2 million liters) and a sample maximum of 950,000 gpy (3.6 million liters). Clearly, off-site processing is preferable for concentrated heavy metal wastes. A mean volume concentrated heavy metals waste producer would have to be nearly 400 miles (640 kilometers) from any other similar waste producer before on-site treatment becomes attractive. Examining the succeeding eight decision maps (Figures E-2 through E-9), it becomes apparent that each is different because each particular waste stream has its own cost characteristics as a result of different treatment and/or disposal requirements. Only in the case of dilute heavy metals (Figure E-9) is the above-defined Point A within the ON-SITE region of the map. Accordingly, the average generator of dilute heavy metal wastes would logically choose on-site treatment. Development of the model on which the decision maps are based may be found in Reference thirty—Six. Included among other important results of that particular study are discussions of location and spacing of regional treatment facilities. 109 ------- Largest Source OFF SITE PROCES5IN( OF COLLECTED WASTES Legend: Numbers in parentheses tre metric units, and those without parentheses are English units. 10,000,000 100,000,000 (37,853,000) Source Size (gallons or liters per year) 1) 1000 (1609) 100L (161) 10 (16) (1.6)1 10,000 (37,853) I ON-SITE PROCESSING A ___ ___ ___ ___ Smallest Sàurce Mean Source I I I I 1 L L.iir 1. $ I 100,000 (378,530) I, 1,000,000 (3,785,300) (378,530,000) Figure E-l Decision Map Concentrated Heavy Metals ------- 1.000 . (1609) (161 I 1 10 (16E 1 Smallest Søurce I (1.6)1L I 10,000 100,000 (37,853) (378,530) 1,000,000 (3,785,300) Largut$durce 10,000,000 (37,853,000) Legend: .Nunib rs in. ar€ itheses. are 11 etric unit , and those withc t parent1 s s ae Engl sh tu ,tts, 100,000,000 1,000,000,000 (378,530,000) (3,785,300,000) Source Size (gallons or liters per year) Figure E-2 Dilute Metals With Organic Contamination I I I 1 I B ON-ShE. PROCESSING 1 4) C A Mean So rcg QIF-SITE PROCESSING ------- I I 1.000 (1609) U) w (161)0 ‘-4 . U) 0 U) —‘ 10.4 —. (16) 4J w U) S mallest Source (1.6) 1 1,000 10,000 100,000 (1609) (37,853) (378,530) Mien Source 1,000,000 (3, 785 , 300) Source Size (gallons or liters per year) F ’,, Largest Source t 1 egend: Numbers in parentheses are metric units, and those without parentheses are English units. 10,000,000 (37, 853,000) ON-SITE TREATMENT C I OFV-SITE TREATMENT Figure E-3 Asphalt Encapsulation of Heavy Metal Sludges ------- I Smallest Source I Largest Source H OFF-SITE TREATMENT OF COLLECTED WASTES Legend: Numbers in parentheses are metric units, and those without parentheses are English units. 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 (37,853) (378,530) (3,785,300) 10,000,000 (37,853,000) Source Size (gallons or liters per year) (0 I ) ON-SITE TREATMENT C 1,000 (1609) 1,000 (1609) ‘——4 - -—— -- - — A Mean Source 100. (161) 10 (16) (1.6) 1 Figure E-4 Cement Encapsulation of Heavy Metal Sludges ------- (1609) U) 14 I o 100 (161) . U) 0 U) 10 (16) •rl 04 w U) (1.6) 1 1: I , 1 I Smallest Source Legendz Numbers n parentheses öre metric units, and I those witholit paren- I theses are English I , I 1,000 10,000 (1609) (37,853) Source Size (gallons or liters per year) Mean Source 100,000 (378, 530) I Largest Source OFF•SITE TREATMENT units. 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000 (3,785,300) (37,853,000) ON-SITE TAEATMENT I A — — - F I (378,530,000) Pigure E-5 Concentrated Cyanides ------- a) 10,000 (37,853) H 1,000 (1609) 100 (161) (16) 10 L 1,000 (1609) Smallest Source 10,000 (37,853) I I ‘I, Mean Source 100,000 (378,530) Largest Source Ii 1,000,000 (3,785,300) Source Size (gallons or liters per year) Legend: Numbers, ir parentheses are metric unitS, thQ e without parentheses are English ur its 100,000.000 (378,530,000) 10,000,000 (37,853,000) I B ON ITE TREATMENT I A I — — - ——-— — - - - - OFF-SITE TR:EATMENT OF COLLECTE.P WASTES Figure E-6 Liquid Chlorinated Hydrocarbons ------- ‘ (161) m 10 (16) 4 ) U) 0 (16) 1 1,000 (1609) I. Smallest Source Legenth I, 10,000 (37,853) Numbers th parentheSes are metric units, a d those without parentheses are English units. 100,000 (378,530) Source Size (gallons or liters per year) Figure E-7 Dilute Cyanides LargestSource H 1,000,000 (3,785, 300) oTER ArMEN ’r 10,000,000 37,853,000) I I I I B ON-SITE TREATMENT I I A Mean Source ------- (1) 4 - I a) 0 U) a) ‘-.4 . U) a) 0 0 U) a) 4 1) 4) -a -I • ‘•J - -I a) 4’) 10,000 (37,853) 1,000 (1609) 100. (161) (16) 10 10,000 (37,853) Smallest Source at 1,000 gallons per year 100,000 (378,530) I I I Largest Source 1,000.000 (3,785,300) OFF-SITE TREATMENT OF COLLECTED WASTES 10,000,000 (37,853,000) N nnber in parentheses are metric units,andt1 ose without parentheses are English ur i s. 100,000,000 (378,530,000) 1.000,000.000 (3,785,300,000) Source Size (gallons or liters per year) rrr I 4 -j ’ ’:!: .1 •t1:T1t —- - ! 1 T:i L.i : H - - - I ON SITE TREATMENT L E1• .I i-: A Mean Source ---4 - -- tegend: Figure E-8 Chlorinated Hydrocarbon and Heavy Metal Slurries ------- 1,000 (1609) ON SITE PROCESSING a) I (i u IIT IIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiii A 0 to 0) U) 0) ource C) 0 U) MearsSourte —j 10 a) # (16) 1 SmaliestSource “ -I 4) C t, S Legend: Nun bers in parenthe8es are metric units, and those I wititout parentheses are U) English units. (1.6) 1 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000 (1609) (37,853) (378,530) (3,785,300) (37,853,000) (378,530,000) Source Size (gallons or liters per year) Figure E-9 Dilute Heavy Metals ------- Appendix F SUMMARY OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE NATIONAL DISPOSAL SITE CONCEPT In the course of investigating the concept of “National Disposal Sites “ for hazardous wastes as mandated by Section 212 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (P.L. 89-272 amended by P.L. 91-512), important and relevant information was developed. Appendices B and D, respec- tively, provide a list of hazardous wastes subject to treatment at such sites, and summaries of current methods of treatment and dis- posal. This Appendix summarizes the findings related to: site selection, methods and processes that are likely to be used at a typical site, and the costs for developing and maintaining such sites. Reference one contains the detailed analyses performed and the rationale for this information. Siting of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities The general approach to the site selection process was to first regionalize the conterminous United States into 41 multi-county regions. Spheres of influence for major industrial waste production areas, which are closely related to hazardous waste production areas, served as the basis for regional delineation (see Table F-i). Thirty-six waste treatment regions were identified, based upon the distance from the 41 major industrial waste production centers, and are shown on Figure F—l. A distance of about 200 miles (322 kilometers) in the East and 250 miles (402 kilometers) in the West was selected as the maximum distance any treatment site should be from the industrial waste production centers in a given subregion. Some of the regions do not contain an industrial waste production center; however, their boundaries are defined by surrounding regions containing waste production centers. No region was generally permitted to cross any major physiographic barrier. Notably, the regions are smaller in the East than In the West. Criteria for site selection were defined with the major emphasis placed on health and safety, and environmental considerations. It was recognized early that two general types of sites would need to be identified: waste processing plant sites, and long-term hazardous waste disposal/storage sites. Site selection criteria and numerical weightings are presented in Table F-2. Based on the site selection criteria, a ranking, screening, and weighting procedure was developed and applied to all counties located in the 36 regions which cover the country. The county-size areal unit (3,050 counties in the conterminous U.S.) appeared to be one of 119 ------- manageable size for the survey. The output listing of all 3,050 counties, grouped by regional ratings is contained in Reference one and is too voluminous for inclusion here. This listing allows for the orderly aid rational selection of counties within each region, for site-specific reconnaissance, and for later detailed field studies that would be required in order to prove out the feasibility of a candidate site. From the total list that rates and ranks all counties, 74 appear to be potentially the best areas for locating hazardous waste treatment/disposal sites. These are presented in Table F-3. In addition, existing or potential Federal and State hazardous waste treatment and disposal sites were identified. Selected examples of these are presented in Table F-4. It should be noted that these are candidate sites; the suitability of a particular site can only be determined by additional field studies, field testing, and technical analyses of the data. Hazardous Waste Management Methods and Costs The approach used In this phase of the study involved development of a Mmodelu facility capable of processing a wide variety of hazardous wastes (excluding radioactive wastes or chemical warfare agents generated or stored at AEC or DOD installations). Conceptual design and cost estimates were prepared for a complete waste management system to process and dispose of the wastes. In addition to treatment and dis- posal, peripheral functions such as transportation, storage, and environmental monitoring were also considered. The basic objective of waste treatment at a hazardous wastes processing facility is the conversion of hazardous substances to forms which are acceptable for disposal or reuse. Since the majority of hazardous waste streams are complex mixtures containing several chemi- cal species, treatment for removal and/or conversion of certain non- hazardous substances from the waste stream will also be required In order to comply with pollution control regulations. In a number of instances, treatment for the nonhazardous substances will dictate the type of process used and will entail the most significant operational costs (e.g., acid neutralization). Broad treatment capability In a central processing facility will permit the processing of many nonhazardous wastes which could give the facility the advantage of economy of scale. In order to maintain a competitive position in the waste processing field In the case of a privately operated facility, It is anticipated that all wastes which can be processed with some return on investment will be accepted. It is possible that the volume of nonhazardous wastes will exceed the volume of hazardous wastes, perhaps by wide margins, in many areas. Inclusion of nonhazardous wastes processing also increases the opportunities for resource recovery (e.g., recovery of metals, oils, and solvents). 120 ------- It must be emphasized that the model facility developed in this study was primarily designed for processing hazardous wastes. There- fore, processing facilities designed for both hazardous wastes and norihazardous wastes may be different in many respects. A number of factors will dictate individual design variations for a given facility. Foremost will be the volumes and types of wastes, both hazardous and nonhazardous, that will be received for processing. One facility may require many different processes whereas another may require only one. Furthermore, processes selected for the model facility are not intended to be all-Inclusive. A wide variety of processes, In addition to those selected for the model facility, is available to meet the needs of a particular location. Description of Model Facilities Hazardous Wastes Processing Facility . The model hazardous wastes procesilng racility incorporates the various functions related to waste treatment and disposal at one central location. The facility Is basically a chemical processing plant which has design features for safe operation in a normal industrial area. Effluents discharged from the facility will be limited to those which meet applicable water and air standards. Local solid waste disposal will be limited to non- hazardous wastes which are acceptable for burial at a conventional landfill. The conventional landfill may be located adjacent to the processing facility or a short distance away. In general, nonhazardous waste brines resulting from hazardous waste treatment will be disposed by ocean dumping where appropriate to avoid potential quality impair- ment of fresh water sources. Land disposal of these brines is a potential alternative method which Is less desirable and which will be used only in arid regions and even there infrequently. All such dis- posal operations will be in accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal standards. In order to accomplish treatment and disposal objectives, the facility will also contain equipment and structures necessary for transporting, receiving, and storing both wastes and raw material. Another important feature will be a laboratory which provides: (1) analytical services for process control and monitoring of efflu- ent and environmental samples; and (2) pIlot scale testing services to assure satisfactory operation of the processing plant. The latter normally is not required in a conventional chemical processing plant, but due to the highly variable nature of the waste feed In this case, pilot scale testing Is considered essential. Hazardous Wastes Disposal Facilijy . For purposes of the mOdel the hazardous wastes disposal facility will consist of a secure” landfill and the appropriate equipment and structures necessary to carry out burial and surveillance of the hazardous solid wastes. Special measures are to be taken during backfilllng to minimize 121 ------- water infiltration. It is possible that low level radioactive burial sites currently used in arid regions of the western United States could also be used with appropriate segregation, for disposal of the hazardous solid wastes. Process Selection . Conceptual design objectives for the model facility included broad treatment capability to permit processing of all hazardous wastes of significant volume generated across the country. Important process selection criteria include demonstrated applicability to the treatment and disposal of existing hazardous wastes and flexibility to handle a wide variety of different waste streams. The objectives of waste processing at the model facility are the removal of hazardous and polluting substances and/or conversion of these substances to forms which are acceptable for disposal or reuse. Based upon the hazardous wastes identification portion of this study described in Section 2 and In Appendix B, it was determined that in order to accomplish these objectives the model facility should include treatment processes for: 1. Neutralization of acids and bases 2. Oxidation of cyanides and other reductants 3. Reduction of chromium-6 and other oxidants 4. Removal of heavy metals 5. Separation of solids from liquids 6. Removal of organics 7. Incineration of combustible wastes 8. Removal of ammonia 9. Concentration of waste brines Processes selected for inclusion In the model facility are presented In Table F-5. Also, Appendix 0 describes the major characteristics of these processes. A conceptual flow diaqram . which integrates the various treatment steps in modular form (Illustrated In Figure F-2), was developed for the model hazardous waste facility. The flow pattern represents that normally expected, and provides for additional piping to permit alterations when necessary. Cost Estimates . Design capacities, capital, and operating costs for typical small, medium, and large size processing facilities are 122 ------- sumarized in Tables F—6, F .-7, and F-8, respectively. The costs include estimates for land, buildings, laboratory offices, and auxiliary equip- ment. It should be noted that these cost data are based on preliminary estimates which have been developed from a nunber of basic assumptions, and are only intended to indicate the norm of a range of costs. Table ‘F-9 identifies in sequence those basic assumptions that have been utilized to arrive at the number, fixed capital and operating costs of large, medium, and small hazardous waste treatment/disposal facilities. This Information was then utilized to develop the configuration for the scenario of a hazardous waste management system cited In Section 4. A more detailed comparative cost analysis that identifies and sumarizes capacities, fixed capital, and operating costs associated specifically with treatment facilities has been developed In Table F-b. These data were utilized in developing the cost aspects of the system scenario. 123 ------- Table F-i Indus tn al Waste Production Centers 1. Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Bellingharn, WA 2. Portland, OR; Vancouver, Longview, WA 3. San Francisco Bay Area, CA 4. Ventura, Los Angeles, Long Beach, CA 5. San Diego, CA 6. Phoenix, AZ 7. Salt lake, Ogden, UT 8. Idaho Falls, Pocatello, ID 9. Denver, CO 10. Santa Fe, Albuquerque, fil ii. El Paso, TX 12. Fort Worth, Dallas, Waco, TX 13. Austin, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, TX 14. Houston, Beaumont, Port Arthur, Texas City, Galveston, TX 15. Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Bartlesville,OK 16. Wichita, Topeka, Kansas City, KS 17. naha, Lincoln, NB; Des Moines, IA 18. Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, MN 19. Cedar Rapids, MI; Burlington, Dubuque, IA; Peoria, IL 20. St. Louis, MO; Springfield, IL 21. MemphIs, TN 124 ------- Table F-i (Continued) 22. Shreveport, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, LA; Jackson, MS 23. Mobile, Montgomery, AL; Tallahassee, FL; Biloxi, Gulfport, MS; Columbus, GA 24. Huntsville, Birmingham, AL; Atlanta, Macon, GA; Chattanooga, Nashville, TN 25. Louisville, Frankfort, Lexington, KY; Evansville, IN 26. Albany, Troy, Schenectady, NY 27. Indianapolis, IN; Cincinnati, Dayton, OH 28. Chicago, Kankakee, IL; Gary, South Bend, Hamond, Fort Wayne, IN 29. Midland, Saginaw, Grand Rapids, Detroit, Dearborn, Flint, MI; Toledo, OH 30. Columbus, Cleveland, Youngstown, Akron, 01- ? 31. Pittsburgh, Johnstown, Erie, PA 32. Charleston, WV; Portsmouth, Norfolk, VA 33. Charleston, SC; Savannah, Augusta, GA 34. WInston-Salem, Raleigh, Greensboro, Charlotte, NC 35. Baltimore, M D 36. PhIladelphia, Allentown, Harrisburg, PA; Camden, Elizabeth, NJ; Wilmington, DE 37. New York, NY; Newark, Paterson, NJ 38. Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Watertown, NY 39. Boston, MA 40. Orlando, Tampa, Miami, FL 41. Little Rock, Pine Bluff, Hot Springs, AR 125 ------- • ... •1 •. - - • ‘: ! •.. \‘ .—. . - I .—.. .. • ‘.• T 5’ ’ •. . ..I • -. — .; .•.— _ ._ - -.. ‘ S • .. — ‘-S ‘ •• -•-•• 5J • — ‘“:. ,1 Figure F-i Site Selection Regions 1S - ‘ . 5 . •: ‘‘ i ‘9?’-- 1* - . 5- - - ‘S ‘5,5. ‘S S. I • ‘‘ S\ • . —I IC ‘ ‘I - -• V - .1 ------- Table F-2 Site Selection Criteria General Criteria We htin o Earth Sciences 31 o Geology o Hydrology o Soils o Climatology Transportation 28 Risk o Economics O Ecology 18 o Terrestrial Life o Aquatic Life O Birds and Wildfowl O Human Environment and Resources Utilization 23 O Demography o Resources Utilization o Public Acceptance 100 ------- Table F-3 Potential Waste Treatment and Disposal Sites STATE COUNTY Alabama Surnter* Arizona Yuma Dallas California Fresno I nyo Kern* Ventura Colorado Weld Connecticut Hartford Florida Alachua Georgia 000ley* Iowa Howard Illinois Jasper Vermil lion Livingston* Ogle Indiana Jackson Kansas Ellsworth Kentucky Franklin Maryland Carroll Massachusetts Franki j * Worcester Mississippi Lincoln 128 ------- Table F-3 (Continued) STATE COUNTY Michigan Isabella* SM awassee Missouri Audrain Montana Custer Nebraska Kearney Nevada Nye* Pershing Washoe New Jersey Sussex New Mexico Eddy Quay San Juan New York Albany Onondaga Otsego Steuben Wyoming North Dakota Grand Forks Oklahoma Atoka Custer Kay Ohio Darke Carroll Wayne Oregon Deschutes Pennsylvania Clinton Montgomery York* South Carolina Barnwell GreenwoOd 129 ------- Table F-3 (Continued) STATE COUNTY Tennessee Gibson Montgomery Texas Bell Erath* Gillespie Grimes Harrls* Haskell Kendall Polk Sutton Utah Tooele Virginia Brunswick Caroline Fluvana Pittsyl vania Washington Benton Lincoln West Virginia Doddridge Wyoming Campbell Laramie *Denotes potential for large size processing facility. 130 ------- Table F-4 Existing and Potential Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Sites (FEDERAL AND STATE) Existing Sites Operated by Federal Agencies U SAEC Hanford Works, Benton County, Washington Savannah River Plant, Aiken County, South Carolina National Reactor Testing Station, Bingham County, Idaho Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada Oak Ridge, Anderson County, Tennessee Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos County, New Mexico Pantex Plant, Randall County, Texas Rocky Flats Plant, Jefferson County, Colorado Fernald, Butler/Hamilton Counties, Ohio DOD Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado Tooele Army Depot, Utah Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon Anniston Army Depot, Alabama Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado Newport Army Ammunition Plant, Indiana Lexington Bluegrass Army Depot, Kentucky State Licensed Radioactive Waste Sltes* Morehead, Kentucky Beatty, Nevada Hanford Works, Washington West Valley, New York Barnwell, South Carolina *The Sheffield, Illinois site Is directly licensed through USAEC, but is not operated by the USAEC. 131 ------- Table F-4 (Continued) Representative Coninercial Radioactive Waste Burial Site Characteristics a. Beatty, Nevada Site Background Ownership of site Population - density in area Location re towns and cities Area of (1) site; (2) controlled acres Comunicatlons Precipitation (In.) (centimeters) Site Characteristics State of Nevada, leased to NECO Desert, virtually uninhabited About 12 ml (19.3 kilometers) southeast of Beatty (1) 80; (2) desert, not controlled Good; hwy U.S. 95 2.5-5.0(6.35—12.7 cm)/yr Drainage Bedrock depth and materials (est Surficial material - depth; types Groundwater - depth; slope Land and water use downstream General soil characteristics Operation - Eguij:m nt and Methods Adequate 575 +ft (175 meters); various sedimentary and metamorphic “ 575 ft (175 meters) alluvial clay, sand, etc. 275-300 ft (84-91.5 meters); SE ’ 3O ft/mi (5.67 meters/kilo- meters) Very little, desert conditions Semi—arid desert; deep soil Monitoring lnstitmmnts and devices Waste handling machinery Trenches - (1) dImensions; (2) design (3) pumped water? Waste handling - (1) transport by company; (2) processing; (3) burial procedures 14 survey instrs; film, air monitors; etc. Tank truck; trailer trucks; dozer; 35-T crane (1) 650 (19&n) x 50 (15.2m) x depth 20 (6.lm)ft; (2) usual design, I.e., drain to sump, 4 ft (1. ) backfill; (3) no water collected (1) yes; (2) liquids solidified; (3) sp. flu. mat. spaced at bottom, slit trench for high- activity materials 132 ------- Table F-4 (Continued) b. Morehead, Kentucky Site ac kground Ownership of site Population - density in area Location re towns and cities Area of: (1) site; (2) controlled acres (hectares) ColTinunicati ons Precipitation (in.) (centimeters) Site Characteristics State of Kentucky, leased to N ECO Rural, sparse (Maxey Flats) 10 mi (16 hectares) northwest of Morehead (1) 200 (81 hectares); (2) 1000 (405 hectares) Fair; state hwy N and S 46 (117 cm) /yr (heavy storms) Drainage Bedrock depth and materials (est) Surficial material - depth; types Groundwater - depth; slope Land and water use downstream General soil characteristics Well drained 50—75 ft (15.25—22.8 meters) shale, sandstone, siltstone 50-75 ft (15.25—22.8 meters) shale, clay, siltstone 35-50 ft (10.7-15.25 meters) (“perched” 2-6 ft [ 0.61-1.83 meters)); erratic Very little nearby, distant (no data) Very impermeable; good soil sorption Monitoring instruments and devices Watte handling machinery Trenches - (1) dimensions; (2) design; (3) water pumped? Waste handling - (1) transport by company; (2) processing; (3) burial procedures Essentially same as at Beatty Usual - crane; dozer; forklifts; etc . (1) 300 (9.15m) x 50 (l5.25m) x depth 20 (6.lm) ft; (2) usual design, sump; (3) yes (1) and (2) same as Beatty (both NECO); (3) per “Radiation Safety Plan” (NECO) ‘.1, Operation - Equipment and Methods 133 ------- Table F-4 (Continued) C. Hanford, Washington Site Background .nership of site Population - density in area Location re towns and cities Area of (1) site; (2) controlled acres Coninunications Precipitation (in.) (centimeters) Site Characteristics State of Washington, leased to NECO No resident, inside AEC plant 25 mi (40.2m) north of Richiand (1) 100 (40 hectares); (2) 1000 (400 hectares) state owned Good, AEC Hanford reservation 6—8 (15-20 cm) /yr. Drainage Bedrock depth and materials (est) Surficial material — depth; types Ground water—depth; slope Land and water use do wistream General soil characteristics Qperation - Equipment and Methods Well drained 250—450 ft (76-137m); basalt 150—350 ft (47—10.7m); silty sand, gravel, clay 240 ft (73m); N and E “. 15—35 ft/ ml (2.8-6.6 meters/kilometers) Columbia River - all uses Little precipitation; deep dry soil Monitoring instruments and devices Waste handling machinery Trenches — (1) dImensions; (2) design; (3) water pumped? Waste handling - (1) transport by company; (2) processing; (3) burial procedures As licensed - survey lnstrs, film, counters Usual - crane, shovel, dozer, lifts, etc. (1) 300 (92m) x 60 (l8m) 25 ft (7.6m); (2) usual (3) no water collects In (1) yes, 95%; (2) lIquids solidified; (3) sp. flu, mat. spaced, separate trench for ion-exchange resins X depth design; s ump 134 ------- Table F-5 Process Selected For Inclusion In Model Hazardous Wastes Processing/Disposal Facility Treatment Processes Disposal Processes Neutralization Ocean Dumping Precipitation Landfill Oxidation—Reduction Flocculation-Sedimentation Filtration Ammonia Stripping Carbon Sorption Incineration Evaporation 135 ------- Figure F-2 Conceptual Modular Flow Diagram ATMOSPHERE ------- Table F-6 Preliminary Cost Estimate Summary For Small Size Processing Facility CAPACITY: 25,000 gpd (94,600 liters Aqueous Waste Treatment 15 tons (13,6 metric tons) /day Incineration 260 day/year Operation TOTAL FIXED CAPITAL COST: $9,300,000 MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST: AQUEOUS WASTE TREATMENT Fixed Daily Ave. Cost Per 1000 - Module Capital Cost,$ Operating Cost,$ Gal(3,785 liters),$ Receiving & Storage 1,262,000 1,881 66.20 Ammonia Stripping 298,700 461 18.40 Chemical Treatment 1,827,300 3,298* 150,50 Liquid—So lids Separation 3,460,000 3,888* 80.10** Carbon Sorption 363,000 758* 17.50 Evaporation 198,000 635* 14.60 Rounded Totals 7,410,000 10,900 347.00 MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST: INCINERATION Fixed Daily Ave. Cost Nodule Capital Cost,$ Operating Cost,$ Per ton,$ Incinerator 1,880,000 3,200 213.00 Scrubber Waste— water Treatment (18,450 gpd) 185.00 (70,000 liters) __________ Total 398.00 * Includes processing cost for incinerator, scrubber wastewater. ** Excludes processing cost for clarifying incinerator scrubber was tewater. 137 ------- Table F-7 Preliminary Cost Estimate Summary For Medium Size Processing Facility CAPACITY: 122,000 gpd (462,000 liters) Aqueous Waste Treatment 74 tons (67 metric tons) /day Incineration 260 day/year Operation TOTAL FIXED CAPITAL COST: $24,070,000 MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS: AQUEOUS WASTE TREATMENT Fixed Daily Ave. Cost Per 10 Module Capital Cost,$ Operating Cost,$ Gal(3785 liters ) Receiving & Storage 3,270,000 6,424 46.40 Ammonia Stripping 773,800 952 7.80 Chemical Treatment 4,734,000 11,307* 84.70 Liquid-So 1 ids Separation 8,963,700 9,516* 39.60** Carbon Sorption 941,000 1,578* 7.40 Evaporation 514,000 2,173* 10.20 Rounded Totals 19,200,000 32,000 196.00 MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS: INCINERATION Fixed Daily Ave. Cost Module Capital Cost,$ Operating Cost,$ Per ton,S Incinerator 4,873,000 7,000 94.60 Scrubber Waste— water Treatment (90,000 gpd) 80.60 (341,000 liters) Total 175.00 * Includes processing cost for incinerator scrubber wastewater ** Excludes processing cost for clarifying incinerator scrubber wastewater 138 ------- Table F-8 Preliminary Cost Estimate Sumary For Large Size Processing Facility CAPACITY: 1,000,000 gpd(3,785,300 liters) Aqueous Waste Treatment 607 tons (550 metric tons)/day Incineration 260 day/year Operation TOTAL FIXED CAPITAL COST: $86,000,000 MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS: AQUEOUS WASTE TREATMENT Fixed Daily Ave.Cost Per 1000 Module Capital Cost,$ Operating Cost,$ Gal(3785 liters ) ,$ Receiving & Storage 11,543,000 38,150 33.60 inmonia Stripping 2,731,500 3,180 3.18 Chemical Treatment 16,710,600 60,630* 53.83 Liquid-Solids Separation 30,915,700 34,687* 17.18 Carbon Sorption 3,322,000 6,290* 3.62 Evaporation 3,413,000 15,947* 9.16 Rounded Totals 68,600,000 159,000 121 MODULAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS: INCINERATION Fixed Daily Ave. Cost Module Capital Cost,$ Operating Cost,$ Per ton,$ Incinerator 17,201,700 27,374 45.10 Scrubber Waste— water Treatment (738,000 gpd) 55.70 (2,800,000 liters) _________ Total 101.00 * Includes processing cost for incinerator scrubber wastewater. ** Excludes processing cost for clarifying incinerator scrubber wastewater. 1 39 ------- Table F-9 Basic Assumptions Utilized for Developing the Hazardous Waste Management System Scenario Nunter Basic Assumptions All hazardous waste will be treated and disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. 2 All hazardous wastes will be treated prior to being disposed of at designated sites to minimize hazard and volume of wastes deposited on land. 3 Treatment and disposal facilities will be dedicated to hazardous wastes. Treatment facilities should have those capabilities indicated in Tables F-6, F-7, and F-8. 4 Certain types and quantities of hazardous wastes will, be treated on-site (at the source) and others at off-site facilities. o The estimated total amount of hazardous wastes to be treated! disposed of is 1.0 X 1Q 7 tons (9 X 106 metric tons) per year. Approximately 4.0 X 10° tons (3.6 106 metric tons) are inor- ganic and 6.0 X 106 tons (5.4 X 100 metric tons) are organic.* 5 EPA economic studies indicate that on-site treatment facilities will be small plants treating primarily dilute aqueous acidic toxic metal wastes which constitute approximately 15 percent by weight of all hazardous wastes. Small on-site facilities will be capable of neutralizing wastes and precipitating toxic metals from the wastes, but will produce a toxic residue which will require further treatment at off-site facilities. o Small facilities will have a capacity of 2.94 X io tons (2.6 X b 4 metric tons) per year. Approximately 51 small on-site facili- ties will e required to treat the estimated 1.5 X 106 tons (1.36 X 100 metric tons) per ypar. Approximately one-third of wastes treated on-site [ 5 X l0 tons (4.5 X i0 5 metric tons) per year] will be shipped to off-site facilities for further treatment. 6 To achieve economies of scale, off-site treatment facilities will be large or medium size treatment plants. o Approximately 9.0 X 106 tons (8.2 X 106 metric tons) per year will be processed at off-site facilities. o Large facilities will have a capacity of 1.33 X 106 tons (1.2 X 10° metric tons) per year, and medium facilities a capacity o 1.62 X 10 ’ tons (1.47 X i0 5 metric tons) per year. * EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762. 140 ------- o System variation studies indicate that the configuration contining least cost and adequate geographical distribution consists of 5 large and 15 medium size facilities. Therefore, large oft-site treatment facilities will process approximately 6.5 X 10 tons (6.0 X 106 metric tons) per year and medium facilities will process approximately 2.5 X 100 tons (2.27 X 10 metric tons) per year. 7 Current treatment technology does not allow complete neutralization/ detoxification of all hazardous wastes. It is estimated that treatment residues constituting 2.5 percent of the incoming waste [ 225,000 tons (200,000 metric tons) per year] will still be hazardous . O Hazardous residues resulting from treatment facilities will be disposed 0 f in secure land disposal sites. o The most convenient location for secure land disposal sites is in association with the large treatment facilities. Therefore, five large secure disposal sites would initially be required. O Hazardous wastes generated at other off-site treatment facilities would also be disposed of at the five large secure disposal sites. * EPA Contract No. 68-01-0762. 141 ------- Table F—b Capacities and Costs of Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities Assumed In Hazardous Waste Management System Scenario OFF-s IT E CM-SITE Large Facility Medium Facfllty Small Facility Smell FaclTity Total Costs c1 (1) Processing Capacity, gal/day (liters/day) aqueous wastes 1,000,000 122,000 25,000 25,000 (3,BOQ,QQQ) (462,000) (95,000) (95,000) (2) 0 9lb/g l, (1) expressed as tons/day (metric tons/day) 550 113 113 (4,080) (498) (102) (102) (3) Processing Capacity, tons/day (metric tons/day) combustible wastes 607 74 15 — (550) (67) (14) — (1) Total Processing Capacity, tons/day (metric tons/day) 5,107 624 128 113 (4,627) (565) (116) (102) (5) Total Processing Capacity, tons/ year (metric tons/year) [ 1] 1,330,000 162,000 33,300 29)400 (1,210,000) (147,000) (30,200) (26,600) Cost 7 Fixed Capital, $ 86,000,000 24,14 )0,000 9,300,000 1,400,000 7 OperatIng Cost, S/day 186,400 39,000 14,100 2,265 8 Operating Cost, 5/yr. [ 2] 48,500,000 10,130,000 3,660,000 589,000 9 Operating Cost, S/yr., with capital write—off [ 3] 57,100,000 12,540,000 4,590,000 729,000 Total Cost 110 Approximate no. of facilities required (4] 5 15 51 11 FIxed Capital, $ million 430 362 71 863 12 Operating Cost, $ million/yr., basis (9) 286 188 37 511 Notes: [ 1) Assuming actual plant operation of 260 days/year. [ 2] Includes neutralization chemicals, labor,utlllties, maintenance, amortization charges (0 7% interest), insurance, taxes, and administrative expenses. [ 3] 10—year straight line depreciation. [ 4] Based on data from EPA Contract No. 68-01—0762 and EPA system variation analysis. ------- Appendix G PROPOSED Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973 93d Congress, 1st Session IN THE U.S. SENATE Bill S. 1086 Introduced by Senator Baker March 6, 1973 Referred to Committee on Public Works IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Bill H.R. 4873 introduced by Representative Staggers for himself and Representative Devine February 27, 1973 Referred to Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 143 ------- A BILL To assure protection of public heakh and other living organisms from the adverse impact of the disposal of hazardous wastes, to authorize a research program with respect to hazardous waste disposal, and for other purposes. 1 Bc it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 lives of the United Slates of America in Coagress assembled, 3 SECTION 1.. This Act may be cited as the “llazardou 4 Waste Management Act of 1973”. 5 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE 6 SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds— 7 (1) that continuing technologi d progress, im- 8 provement in the methods of manufacture, and abate- 144 ------- 1 merit of air and water pollution has resulted in an 2 ever-mounting increase of hazardous wastes; 3 (2) that improper land disposal and other manage- 4 ment practices of solid, liquid, and semisolid hazardous 5 wastes which are a part of interstate commerce are re- 6 suIting in adverse impact on health and other liV ing OI — 7 ganisms; 8 (3) that the knowledge and technology necessary 9 for alleviating adverse health, environmental, and es— 10 thetic impacts associated with current waste manage- 11 ment and disposal practices are generally available at 12 costs within the financial capacity of those who generate 13 such wastes, even though this kn w1edge and technology 14 are not widely utilized; 15 (4) that private industry has demonstrated its 16 capacity and willingness to develop, finance, construct, 17 and operate facilities arid to perform other activities for 18 the adequate disposal of hazardous and other waste 19 materials; 20 (5) that while the collection and disposal of wastes 21 should continue to be a responsibility of private individ- 22 uals and organizations an d the concern of State, regional, 23 and local agencies, the problems of hazardous waste 24 disposal as set forth above and as an intrinsic part of 145 ------- 1 interstate commerce have become a matter national in 2 scope and in concern, and necessitate Federal action 3 through regulation of the treatment and the disposal of 4 the most hazardous of these wastes, and through techni- 5 cal and other assistance in the application of new and 6 improved methods arid processes to provide for proper 7 waste disposal practices and reductions in the amount of 8 waste and unsalvageable materials. 9 (b) The purposes of this Act therefore are— 10 (1) to protect public health and other living orga- nisms through Federal regulation in the treatment and 12 disposal of certain hazardous wastes; 13 (2) to provide for the promulgation of Federal 14 guidelines for State regulation of the treatment and 15 disposal of hazardous wastes not subject to Federal reg- 16 ulation; 17 (3) to provide technical and other assistance to 18 public and private institutions in the application of ef- 19 ficient and effective waste management systems; 20 (4) to promote a national research program relat- 21 ing to the health and other effects of hazardous wastes 22 and the prevention of adverse impaets relating to health 23 and other living organisms. 146 ------- DEFINITIONS 2 SEC. 3. When used in this Act: 3 (1 ) The term “Administrator” means the Administra- 4 for of the Environmental Protection Agency. 5 (2) The term “State” means a State, the District of 6 Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 7 (3) The term “waste” means useless, unwanted, or 8 discarded solid, semisolid or liquid materials. 9 (4) The terni “hazardous waste” means any waste or 10 eombinatioii of wastes which pose a substantial present or 11 potential hazard to human health or living organisms because 12 such wastes are nondegradable or persistent in nature or 13 because they can be biologically magnified, or because they 14 can be lethal, or because they may otherwise cause or tend 15 to cause detrimental cumulative effects. 16 (5) The term “secondary material” means a material 17 that is or can be utilized in place of a primary or raw 18 material in manufacturing a product. 19 (G) The term “generation” means the act or process 20 of producing waste materials. 21 (7) The term “storage” means the interim contain- 22 ment of waste after generation and prior to ultimate disposal. 23 Containment for more than two years shall be considered 24 disposal. 25 (8) The term “transport” means the movement of 147 ------- 1 wastes from the point of generation to any intermediate 2 transfer points, and finaily to the point of ultimate dis- 3 posal. 4 (9) The term “treatment” means any activity or proc- 5 essing designed to change the physical form or chemical 6 composition of waste so as to render such materials non- 7 hazardous. 8 (10) The term “disposal of waste” means the dis- 9 charge, deposit, or injection into subsurface strata or exca- 10 vations or the ultimate disposition onto the land of any 11 waste. 12 (11) The term “disposal site” means the location where 13 any final deposition of waste materials occurs. 14 (12) The term “treatment facility” means a location 15 at which waste is subjected to treatment and may include 16 a facility where waste has been generated. 17 (13) The term “person” means any individual, partner- 18 ship,’ copartnership, finn, company, corporation, association, 19 joint stock company, trust, State, municipality, or any legal 20 representative agent or assigns. 21 (14) The term “municipality” means a city,. town, borough, county, parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State law with responsibility for the plan- ning or administration of waste management, or an Indian i tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization. 148 ------- 1 (15) The term “was te management” means the sys- 2 tematic control of the generation, storage, transport, treat- 3 ment, recycling, recovery, or disposal of waste materials. 4 STANDARDS AND GTJIDELII ES FOR STATE REGULATION 5 SEC. 4. (a) Within eighteen months after the date of 6 enactment of this Act, and from t rne to time thereafter, the 7 Administrator pui uant to this section and after consultation 8 with representatives of appropriate Federal agencies shall by 9 regulation— 10 (1) identify hazardous wastes; ii (2) establish standards for treatment and disposal 12 of such wastes; and 13 (3) establish guidelines for State programs for im- 14 plementing such standards. 15 (b) In identifying a waste as hazardous, pursuant to 16 this section, the Administrator shall specify quantity, con- 17 centration, and the physical, chemical, or biological proper- 18 ties of such waste, taking into account means of disposal, 19 disposal sites, and available disposal practices. 20 (c) The standards established under this section shall 21 include minimum standards of performance required to pro- 22 tect human health and other living organisms and minimum 23 acceptable criteria as to characteristics and conditions of dis- 24 posal sites and operating methods, techniques, and practices 25 of hazardous wastes disposal taking into account the nature 149 ------- 1 of the hazardous waste to be disposed. Such standards shall 2 include but not be limited to requirements that any person 3 generating waste must (1) appropriately label all containers 4 used for onsite storage or for tran sport of hazardous 5 waste; (2) follow appropriate prOcedures for treating haz- 6 ardous waste onsite; (3) transport all hazar lous waste 7 intended for offsite disposal to a hazardous waste disposal 8 facility for which a permit has been issued. In establishing 9 such standards the Administrator shall take into account 10 the economic and social costs and benefits of achieving such 11 standards. 12 (d) The guidelines established under paragraph (a) (3) 13 of this section shall provide that— 14 (1) with respect to disposal sites for hazardous 15 wastes, the State program requires that any person 16 obtain from the State a permit to operate such site; 17 (2) such permits require compliance with the 18 minimum standards of performance acceptable site cr1- 19 teria set by the guidelines; 20 (3) the State have such regulatory and other au- 21 thorities as may be necessary to carry out the purpose 22 of this Act, including, but not limited to, the authority 23 to inspeet disposal sites and records, and to judicially 24 enforce compliance with the requirements of an ap- 25 proved program against any person. 150 ------- 1 (e) Within eighteen months of the promulgation of 2 final regulations under this Act, each State shall submit to 3 the Administrator evidence, in such form as he shall re- 4 quire, that the State has established a State program which 5 meets the requirement of the guidelines of paragraph (a) 6 (3) of this section. If a State fails to submit such evidence, 7 in whole or in part, the Administrator shall publish notice 8 of such failure in the Federal iRegister and provide such 9 further notification, in such form as he considers appropriate, 10 to inform the public in such State of such failure. 11 FEDERAL REGULATION 12 SEC. 5. (a) Within eighteen months after the date of 13 enactment of this Act and from time to time thereafter, the 14 Administrator after consultation with representatives of 15 appropriate Federal agencies may with respect to those 16 hazardous wastes identified pursuant to subsection (a.) (1) 17 of section 4 determine in regulations those of such wastes 18 which because of their quantity or concentration, or because 19 of their chemical characteristics, could if allowed to be dis- 20 persed into the environment result in, or contribute to, the 21 loss of human life or substantial damage to human health 22 or to other living organisms. 23 (b) The Administrator may promulgate regulations 2. establishing Federal standards and procedures for the 25 treatment and disposal of such wastes. Such Federal stand- 151 ------- 1 ards and procedures shall be designed to prevent damage 2 to human health or living organisms from exposure to such 3 wastes identified pursuant to subsection (a) and may 4 include— (1) with respect to hazardous waste disposal 6 sites— 7 (A) minimum requirements a.s to the char- 8 acteristics and conditions of such sites, 9 (B) minimum standards of performance for 10 the operation and maintenance of such sites, and 11 (C) recommendations as to specific design and 12 construction criteria for sueh sites; and 13 (2) with respect to hazardous waste treatment 14 facilities— 15 (A) minimum standards of performance for 16 the operation and maintenance, and 17 (B) recommendations based on available tech- 18 nology as to appropriate methods, techniques, or 19 practices for the treatment of specific wastes. 20 (c) The Administrator may issue a permit for the 21 operation of a hazardous waste disposal site or treatment 22 facility if, after a review of the design, construction, and 23 proposed operation of such site or facility, he determines that such operation will meet the requirements and standardS 25 promulgated pursuant to subsection (b) 152 ------- 1 (d) WTithin eighteen months after the date of enactment 2 of this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations 3 establishing requirements for generators of hazardous wastes 4 subject to regulation under this section to— (1) maintain records indicating the quantities of 6 hazardous waste generated and the disposition thereof; 7 (2) package hazardous waste in such a manner so 8 as to protect human health and other living organisms, and label such packaging so as to identify accurately 10 such wastes; 11 (3) treat or dispose of all hazardous waste at a 12 hazardous waste disposal site or treatment facility for 13 which a permit has been issued under this Act; 14 (4) handle and store all hazardous waste in such a 15 manner so as not to pose a threat to human health or 16 other living organisms; 17 (5) submit reports to the Administrator, at such 18 times as the Administrator deems necessary, setting 19 out— 20 (A) the quantities of hazardous waste subject 21 to Federal regulation under this subsection that he 22 has generated; 23 (B) the nature and quantity of any other waste 24 which he has generated which he has reason to be- 153 ------- 1 lieve may have a substantial adverse effect on 2 human health and other living organisms; and 3 (C) the disposition of all waste included in 4 categories (A) and (B). 5 (e) The Administrator may prescribe regulations re- 6 quiring any person who stores, treats, disposes of, or other- 7 wise handles hazardous wastes subject to regulation under 8 this section to maintain such records with respect to their 9 operations as the Administrator determines are necessary 10 for the effective enforcement of this Act. 11 (f) The Administrator is authorized to enter into coop- 12 erative agreements with States to delegate to any State 13 which meets such minimum requirements as the Adrninistra- 14 toT may establish by regulation the authority to enforce this 15 section against any person. 16 FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT 17 SEc. 6. (a) Whenever on the basis of any information 18 the Administrator determines that any person is in violation 19 of requirements under section 5 or of any standard under 20 section 4 (a) (2) under this Act, the Administrator may 21 give notice to the violator of his failure to comply with such 22 requirements or may request the Attorney General to corn- mence a civil action in the appropriate United States district 24 court for appropriate relief, including temporary or perina- 25 nent injunctive relief. If such violation extends beyond the 154 ------- 1 thirtieth day after the Administrator’s notification, the Ad- 2 ministrator may issue an order requiring compliance within 3 a specified time period or the Adnii tis1rator may request 4 the Attorney General to eoninience a civil action iii the 5 United States district court in the district iii which the vio- 6 latioii occurred for appropriate relief, including a temporary 7 or permanent injunction Prrn ided, That, in the case of a 8 violation of any standard itiider section 4 (a) (2) where such 9 violation occurs in a State which has submitted the evidence 10 required under section 4 (e). the Administrator shall give 11 notice to the State in which such violation has occurred 12 thirty days prior to issuing an order or requesting the Attor- 13 ney General to commence a clvi ii action. If such violator fails 14 to take corrective action within the time specified in the 15 order, he shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than 16 25,000 for each day of continued noncompliance. The 17 Administrator may suspend or revoke any permit issued to 18 the violator. 19 (h) Any order or any suspension or revocation of a 20 permit shall become final unless, no later thaii 30 days after 21 the order or notice of the suspension or revocation is served, 22 the person or persons named therein request a public hear- 23 ing. Upon such request the Administrator shall promptly 24 conduct a public bearing. In connection with any proceed- 155 ------- 1 ing under this section the Administrator may issue subpenas 2 for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the produc- 3 tion of relevant papers, books, and documents, and may 4 promulgate rules for discovery procedures. 5 (c) Any order issued under this section shall state with 6 reasonable specificity the nature of the violation and specify 7 a time for compliance and assess a penalty, if any, which the 8 Administrator determines is a reasonable period and penalty g taking into account the seriousness of the violation and any 10 good faith efforts to comply with the applicable requirements. ii (d) Any person who knowingly violates any require- 12 ment of this Act or commits any prohibited act shall, upon 13 conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $25,00() 14 for each day of violation, or to imprisonment not to exceed 15 one year, or both. 16 RESEARCU, DEVELOPMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, TECIrNICAL 17 ASSISTANCE AND OTRER ACTIVITIES 18 SEC. 7. (a) The Administratoi sh il ] conduct, encour- 19 age, cooperate with, and render fln&ncial and other assist. 20 ance to appropriate public (whether Federal, State, inter- 21 state, or local) authorities, agencies, and institutions, private 22 agencies and institutions, and individuals in the conduct of, 23 and promote the coordination of, research, development, in- 24 vestigations, experiments, surveys, and studies relating to— 156 ------- 1 (1) any adverse health and welfare effects on the 2 release into the environment of material present in 3 waste, and methods to eliminate such effects; 4 (2) the operation or financing of waste manage- 5 ment programs; 6 (3) the development and application of new and 7 improved methods of collecting and disposing of waste 8 and processing and recovering materials and energy 9 from wastes; and 10 (4) the reduction of waste generation arid t.he re- 11 covery of secondary materials and energy from solid, 12 liquid, and semisolid wastes. 13 (b) In carryii g out the provisions of the preceding 14 subsection, the Administrator is authorized to— 15 (1) collect and make available, through publica- lb tion. and other appropriate means, the results of, and 17 other information pertaining to, such research and other 18 activities, including appropriate recommendations in 19 connection therewith; 20 (2) cooperate with public and private agencies, 21 institutions, and organizations, and with any industries 22 involved, in the preparation and the conduct of such re- 23 search and other activities; and 24 (3) make grants-in-aid to and contract with public 157 ------- 1 or private agencies and institutions and individuals for 2 research, surveys, development, and public education. 3 Contracts may be entered into without regard to sections 4 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529; 5 41 U.S.C. 5). 6 (c) The Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal 7 Maritime Commission, and the Office of Oil and Gas in the 8 Department of the Interior, in consultation with the Environ- 9 mental Protection Agency and with other Federal agencies 10 as appropriate, shall conduct within twelve months of the 11 date of enactment of this Act and submit to Congress, a 12 thorough and complete study of rate setting practices with 13 regard to the carriage of secondary materials by rail and 14 ocean carriers. Such study shall include a comparison of 15 such practices with rate setting practices with regard to 16 other materials and shall examine the extent to which, if at 17 all, there is discrimination against secondary materials. 18 INSPEOT TONS 19 SEc. 8. (a) For the purpose of developing or assisting 20 in the development of any regulation or enforcing the 21 provisions of this Act, any person who stores, treats, trans- 22 ports, disposes of, or otherwise handles hazardous wastes 23 shall, upon request of any officer or employee of the Environ- 24 mental Protection Agency or of any State or political sub- 158 ------- 1 division, duly designated by the Administrator, furnish or 2 permit such person at all reasonable times to have access to, 3 and to copy all records relating to such wastes. 4 (h) For the purposes of developing or assisting in the 5 development of any regulation or enforcing the provisions 6 f this Act, officers or employees duly designated by the 7 \. dini ni strator are authorized— 8 (1) to enter at reasonable times any establish- 9 rnent 01. other place maintained by any person where 10 hazardous wastes are stored, treated, or disposed of; 11 (2) to inspect and obtain samples from any person 12 of any such wastes and samples of any containers or 13 labeling for such wastes. Before undertaking such in- 14 spection, the officers or employees must present to the 15 owner, operator, or agent in charge of the establishment 16 or other place where hazardous wastes are stored, 17 treated, or disposed of appropriate credentials and a 18 written statement as to the reason for the inspection. 19 Each such inspection shall be commenced and completed 20 with reasonable promptness. If the officer or employee 21 obtains any samples, prior to leaving the premises, he 22 shall give to the owner, operator, or agent in charge 23 a. receipt describing the sample obtained and if requested 24 a portion of each such sample equal in volume or weight 159 ------- 1 to the portion retained. If an analysis is made of such 2 samples, a copy of the results of such analysis shall he 3 furnished promptly to the owner, operator, or agent 4 in charge. 5 (c) Any records, reports, or information obtained from 6 any person under this subsection shall be available to the 7 public, except that upon a showing satisfactory to the Ad- 8 ministrator by any person that records, reports, or informa- 9 tion, or particular part thereof, to which the Administrator 10 has access under this section if made public, would divulge 11 information entitled to protection under section 1905 of 12 title 18 of the United States Code, the Administrator shall 13 consider such information or particular portion thereof eon- fidential in accordance within the purposes of that section. 15 ENCOURAGEMENT OF INTERSTATE AND INTERLOCAL 16 COOPERATION 17 See. 9. The Administrator shall encourage cooperative 18 activities by the States and local governments in connection 19 with waste disposal programs, encourage, where practicable, interstate, interlocal, and regional planning for, and the 21 conduct of, interstate, interlocal, and regional hazardous 22 waste disposal programs; and encourage the enactment of 23 improved and, so far as practicable, uniform State and local 24 laws governing waste disposal. 160 ------- 1 IMMINENT HAZARD 2 SEc. 10. (a) An imminent hazard shall be considered to 3 exist when the Administrator has reason to believe that 4 handling or storage of a hazardous waste presents an im- 5 minent and substantial danger to human health or other liv- 6 ing organisms the continued operation of a disposal site will 7 result in such danger when a State or local authority has 8 not acted to eliminate such risk. 9 (h) If an imminent hazard exists, the Administrator 10 may request the Attorney General to petition the district 11 court of the United States in the district where such hazard 12 exists, to order any disposal site operator or other person 13 having custody of such waste to take such action as is neces- 14 sary to eliminate the imminent hazard, including, but not 15 limited to, permanent or temporary cessation of operation of 16 a disposal site, or such other remedial measures as the court 17 deems appropriate. 18 PROELBITED ACTS 19 SEc. 11. The following acts and the causing thereof are 20 prohibited and shall be subject to enforcement in accord- 21 ance with the provisions o subsection 6 (d) of this Act: 22 (a) Operating any disposal site for hazardous waste 23 identified pursuant to section 5 without having obtained an 24 operating permit pursuant to such section. 25 (b) Disposing of hazardous waste identified pursuant 161 ------- 1 to section 5 in a manner not in compliance with requirements 2 Under section 5. 3 (c) Failure to comply with the requirements of section 5 4 in labeling containers used for the storage, transport, or dis- posal of hazardous waste. 6 (d) Failure to comply with (1) the conditions of any 7 Federal permit issued under this Act, (2) any regulation 8 promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to section 4 (a) (2) or section 5 of this Act, or (3) any order issued by the 10 Administrator pursuant to this Act. 11 APPLICATION OF STANDARDS TO FEDERATI AGENCIES 12 SEc. 12. (a) Each department, agency, and instruinen- 13 tality of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of 14 the Federal Government having jurisdiction over any prop- 15 erty or facility, or engaged in any activity which generates, 16 OT which may generate, wastes shall insure compliance with 17 such standards pursuant to subsections 4(a) (2), 5 (a), and 18 5(c) as may be established by the Administrator for the 19 treatment and disposal of such wastes. (b) The President or his designee may exempt any 21 facility or activity of any department, agency, or instruxnen- ta]ity in the executive branch from compliance with guide- lines established under section 4 if he determines it to be in the paramount interest of the United States to do so. Any exemption sb,ill be for a period not in excess of one year, 162 ------- 1 but additional exemptions may be granted for periods of not 2 to exceed one year upon the President’s or his designee’s 3 making of a new determination. The Administrator shall 4 ascertain the exemptions granted under this subsection and 5 shall report each January to the Congress all exemptions 6 from the requirements of this section granted during the pre- 7 ceding calendar year. 8 (c) Within eighteen months after enactment of this Act 9 and from time to time thereafter, the Administrator, in con- 10 sultation with other appropriate Federal agencies, shall 11 identify products which can utilize significant quantities of 12 secondary materials and shall issue guidelines with respect 13 to the inclusion of such secondary materials to the maximum 14 extent practicable in products procured by the Federal 15 Government. 16 (d) In any proceeding initiated before the Interstate 17 Commerce Commission or the Federal Maritime Commis- 18 sion after the enactment of this Act where a determination 19 is made by such Oommis ion as to any individual or joint 20 rate, fare, or charge whatsoever demanded, charged, or 21 collected by any common carrier or carriers, a specific find- 22 ing by the Commission will be required that such rate, fare, 23 or charge does not or will not cause discrimination against seeondary materials. 163 ------- 1 CITIZEN SUITS 2 SEC. 13. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) any 3 person may commence a civil action for injunctive relief on 4 his own behalf— 5 (1) against any person who is alleged to be in 6 violation of any regulation promulgated or order issued 7 under this Act; 8 (2) against the Administrator where there is al- 9 leged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act 10 or duty under this Act which is not discretionary with 11 the Administrator. 12 Any action under paragraph (a) (1) of this subsection 13 shall be brought in the district court for the district in which the alleged violation occurred and any action brought under 15 paragraph (a) (2) of this subsection shall he brought in 16 the District Court of the District of Columbia. The district courts shall have jurisdicdon, without regard to the amount 18 in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce 19 such regulation or order, or to order the Administrator to ° perform such act or duty as the case may be. 21 (b) No action may be commence&— (1) under subsection (a) (1) of this section— (A) prior to sixty days after the plaintifi has given notice of the violation (1) to the Adminis- 64 ------- 1 trator, (II) to the State in which the alleged viola- 2 tion occurs, and (iii) to any alleged violator of the standard, limitation, or order, or 4 (B) if the Administrator or State has caused to 3 be commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil 6 or criminal action in a court of the United. States 7 or a State to require compliance with requirements 8 of this Act or order issued hereunder; 9 (2) under subsection (a) (2) prior to sixty days 10 after plaintiff has given notice of such action to the 11 Adiiiini trator. 12 Notice under this subsection shall be given in 13 such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe by 14 regulation. 15 (3) in such action under this section, lithe United 16 States is not a party, the Attorney Genera’ may inter- 17 vene as a matter of right. 18 (d) The court, in issuing any final order in any action 19 brought pursuant to this section, may award costs of lifiga- 20 tion (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) 21 to any party, whenever the court determines such award is 22 appropriate. 23 (e) Nothing in this section shall restrict any right 24 which any person (or class of persons) may have under any 25 statute or common law to seek enforcement of any regulation 165 ------- 1 or to seek any other relief (including relief against the Ad- 2 ministrator or a State agency). 3 STATE AUTHORITY 4 SEc. 14. (a) If the Administrator has promulgated 5 regulations under section 5 no State or municipality may 6 without the approval of the Administrator impose more 7 stringent requirements than those imposed under the pro- 8 visions of section 5 on the transport, treatment, or disposal 9 of hazardous wastes. 10 (b) No State or municipality shall impose, on wastes 11 originating in other States or municipalities, requirements re- 12 specting the transport of such wastes into or disposal within 13 its jurisdiction which are more stringent than those require- 14 merits applicable to wastes originating within such receiving 15 States and municipalities. 16 AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATION 17 Si c. 15. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated 18 to the Environmental Protection Agency such sums as may 19 be necessary for the purposes and administration of this Act. 20 JUDICIAL REVIEW 21 SEC. 16. (a) A petition for review of action of the Ad- 22 ministrator in promulgating any regulation pursuant to see- tions 4 or 5 shall be filed in the United States Court of Ap- pe*.h for the District of Columbia. Any person who will be adve *e1y affected by & final order or other final determina- 166 ------- 1 tion issued under section 6 may file a petition with the 2 United States Court of Appeals for the circuit wherein such 3 person resides or has his principal place of business, for a 4 judicial review of such order or determination. Any such 5 petition shall be ified within thirty days from the date of such 6 action or order, or after such date if such petition is based 7 solely on grounds arising after such thirtieth day. 8 (b) Action of the Administrator with respect to which 9 review could have been obtained under subsection (a) shall 10 not be subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceed- 11 ings for enforcement. 12 (c) In any judicial proceeding in which review is 13 sought of an action under this Act required to be made on 14 the record after notice and opportunity for hearing, if any 15 party applies to the court for leave to adduce additional 16 evidence, and shows to the satisfaction of the court that such 17 additional evidence is material and that there were reason- 18 able grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the 19 proceedings before the Administrator, the court may order 20 such additional evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) 21 to be taken before the Administrator, in such manner and 22 upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem 23 proper. The Administrator may modify his findings as to 24 the 1& ts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional 25 evidence so taken and be shall file such modified or new 167 ------- 1 findings, and his recommendation, if any, for the modifica- 2 tion or setting aside of his original determination, with the 3 returii of such additional evidence. 4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS 5 S c. 17. (a) ThisAct shall notapplyto— 6 (1) any source material, special nuclear material, 7 or byproduct material subject to regulation or control 8 pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 9 amended; 10 (2) lethal chemicals subject to regulation pur- 11 suant to title 50, Fnited States Code, section 1511, 12 and the following, as amended. 13 (b) This Act shall not be construed to relieve any 14 person from any present or future requirement arising from 15 any other Federal law. * u Mw ------- |